:: A note about redemption

I feel it's only fair to warn you that this is a sappy post. Feel free to pass and go on to the next one. Hopefully ciccina or lady bec (or buffy if she isn't still coughing up a lung) will come forward with more cogent analysis of yesterday's news. In the meantime, you get my emotional reaction.

I found myself in tears a lot yesterday as I was listening to the news about Hillary's farewell speech, and Barack's gracious acceptance, and it left me rather confused. I mean, it's not like we didn't know what Hillary was going to do. Hell, we knew it was over weeks ago, even though I was proud of her for fighting it out to the very end. We could probably even have guessed what she was actually going to say: she's talk about the historical meaning of her campaign, the message for little girls, the value of young people, a big endorsement for Obama, etc. So why the tears?

Well, for one thing, watching her finally concede defeat was heartbreaking in itself. And it was a really good speech, even if filled with predictable elements. But then I realized that it wasn't just about Hillary's departure. A few minutes after hearing coverage of her speech, I found myself in tears listening to an NPR story about students at Howard University Middle School, and how Obama's campaign has affected them. Teachers spoke about the changes they'd seen in their students since the campaign started, how much more energetic and engaged they were in their studies. Students talked about how Obama inspired them.

And that's when I realized why I spent so much time in tears: because both of these campaigns have inspired millions of people in this country in ways that past campaigns never could. When I look at McCain in light of the two Democratic contenders, I wonder how on earth people could see value in sticking with white, privileged, narrow-minded, callous, boring, old-fashioned, conservative, war-mongering policies of this administration, as well as a McCain administration. Hillary and Obama's campaigns each talk about a United States that I want to be a part of. And it's been a long long time since I've felt that kind of political emotion. So yes, there were tears of sadness yesterday, but frankly, tears of hope, tears of happiness that these campaigns have reached and touched people who would otherwise have stayed out of the race.

Now, back to our regularly schedule, cynical programming. Read more!

:: Too little too late

Well, happily for all of us, the tremendous heat is going to give me a lot of time to catch up on my blogging. And laundry. But that's a different story. So brace yourself for TWO posts.

I've noticed that none of my Esteemed Colleagues have written about Hillary's speech yesterday, so I will attempt to add my opinion from far away, and a day late (this is how leaving the Capitol changes your values: they were at the speech, I was at yoga). But first, I'd like to turn away from the campaign for a moment and back to an earlier topic: the ongoing defensiveness at NARAL Pro-Choice America, following their premature presidential endorsement.

I was somewhat startled to receive in my (virtual) mailbox the other day a (virtual) letter from Nancy Keenan in response to my request to be removed from NARAL's mailing list. This would have been a lovely gesture three weeks ago when they first made this idiotic move, and faced an outstanding backlash from their own supporters and other feminist political leaders. But now, it rings hollow, which is sort of a shame, because this is the kind reasoning I would have liked to hear (and many asked for) at the time:

The timing of our endorsement was based on several factors. At the time our PAC endorsed, Sen. Obama lead overwhelmingly in the important markers leading to the nomination: pledged delegates, superdelegates, popular vote and cash on hand. Sen. Obama needed fewer than 30% of the remaining delegates to win; Sen. Clinton needed to win more than 70%. He is very likely going to be the Democratic nominee.

You can't argue with that cold logic. So why not just display cold logic instead of insipid cheering? Honestly, by the end of Nancy's video announcement, I was ready for her to get up and start waving pompoms.

But the rest of their explanation makes it clear to me that not only were they just sure they had the right candidate, they also wanted to make it it okay for their members to vote against his opponent, Hillary.

Second, the vast majority of voters still don't know just how pro-choice Barack Obama is and how anti-choice John McCain has been during the quarter-century he has been in Washington, DC. Many voters who may be inclined to support McCain don't know his positions on specific issues, particularly his consistent opposition to a woman's right to choose. They believe instead that John McCain is a "moderate" and a "maverick" so assume he must be pro-choice.

Sen. Obama has also been a strong advocate for a woman's right to choose throughout his career in public service. Since joining the Senate in 2005, he has worked to unite Americans on both sides of this debate behind commonsense, common-ground ways to prevent unintended pregnancy. He is an original cosponsor of the Prevention First Act, a package of proposals that would, among other things, provide teens with comprehensive sex education, prevent pharmacies from denying women access to their birth-control prescriptions, and increase access to family-planning services. Sen. Obama is also a cosponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify the tenets of Roe v. Wade and protect the right to choose for future generations. And he is the author of legislation to fix the birth-control pricing crisis facing millions of low-income women across the country today.

In other words kids, you don't need to vote for that crone Hillary! You can be like all the other cool progressive kids and make a vote for Obama AND for choice! (Nevermind that he says really weird and vague things about protecting Roe. With their new close relationship, can NARAL fix that??)

Which leads me to what NARAL continues to miss (or ignore), and which has lead many of us (hundreds? thousands? I'm guessing thousands) to give up our NARAL membership. First, that insipid announcement showed total disregard for its membership, many of whom were (and are) strong Hillary supporters. It made light of an important decision, not just for an organization, but for a movement. If their board was so split, then surely they should have known that their membership would be equally split. For me that indicates either hubris or incompetence. Either way, I'd rather not be associated with it.

Second, the contention that they could not campaign against McCain until they had someone to campaign for. Well, maybe I'm extraordinarily capable, but I have no problem doing that. I could support Hillary, and still acknowledge that Obama was also an excellent choice. And because there are two good pro-choice candidates, I find it very easy to point to McCain and talk about how this supposed "maverick" has embraced the very worst Christian fundamentalists this nation has to offer in order to get elected, and about his horrific voting record on reproductive health and freedom. See? That was easy.

I'll continue to support my local NARAL, one of many that was left scrambling to explain to its own membership that they had not made any endorsement themselves, and I wear my Planned Parenthood votes t-shirt with pride, but I'm staying clear of NARAL-PCA.

Read more!

:: The Massive Tool(s) Report

Oh my god. These people are such massive tools.

First: the geniuses at Slate's "XX blog" - who have been bashing Hillary for months on end with every anti-feminist talking point to come out of the Obama campaign, but still call themselves feminists - are doing a live-interactive-web thingy at the ever-repellent (sorry, Buffy) Washington Post. I'll cut to the chase - check out this exchange, with a few formatting changes added because I can't help myself:

Edwardsville, Illinois:

I'm a big fan of Meghan O'Rourke's writing, but when she wrote that "Clinton's relationship to gender seemed at turns angry and deeply ambivalent" in contrast to Obama's relationship to race, I had to laugh.

Meghan, have you read "Dreams of My Father" or "Audacity of Hope"? If so, do you really believe that Obama's relationship to race is anything but "angry and deeply ambivalent?" I think the whole controversy with Rev. Wright arose from just that anger and ambivalence, and my Senator's quest to reconcile himself with race.

I also don't think his anger and ambivalence (or hers) ought to be counted as a negative. Shouldn't we all be angry about the role of race and gender in our society, still, after all this time? Aren't women all amibivalent about the impact our gender does or should have on our life choices? What do you think?

Meghan O'Rourke:

That's a really good point, and my only excuse is that I was writing overnight on deadline!

What I was trying to say, more precisely, was that in her demeanor on the campaign trail, Hillary (to my eyes) didn't manage to seem as open and humble about her situation as Obama did.

Obama is deeply ambivalent in those books: you're totally right. But on the stump he seemed willing to admit how hard it was for him -- and to have chosen to let people see how hard it was for him. So there's an ambivalence there, yes, but he managed to project a somewhat unified front ABOUT that ambivalence.

Whereas I felt Hillary switched back and forth more. Part of what I was getting at, or wanted to, IS that women do feel ambivalent and angry. And I nderstand Hillary's ambivalence and anger -- I really do. And I feel I've acted the way she has, writ small, in situations where I've felt chagrined that men seem to be given more authority by default.

But I do think it's the real challenge for women: how to care deeply about women's rights and equality while not becoming embittered.

And let's face the unfair, bitter truth: I, like many women, probably hold Hillary to a higher standard than I would many men. I wish that weren't the case, and I strive against it. But I'm sure I'm complicit in the double standard.

Like I said - what a tool.

Our next entry comes from yesterday's New York Times "Caucus" blog. Its the very patronizing item "For Clinton's Women Fans, Mourning and Anger." Here's your sign:

For many of these women, it was not just a matter of politics, but of identity. Older, more affluent, and often business-minded, Mrs. Clinton’s live audience last night resembled a more mature version of the cast of “Sex and the City.” Still, while they may be wearing Donna Karan and look as if life has treated them well, many said her struggle to gain the nomination -– and the insults they believe Mrs. Clinton has endured along the way – mirrors their own struggles in life and in the corporate world.

I can't muster anything more articulate; these fools have plumb worn me out. Please, someone else do it. Read more!

:: The Curious Case of the Contradictory Comments

A Tiny Mystery at our Very Own Doorstep

[New! See update below!]

I just want to point this out in case you missed it. Take a look at the two comments posted in response to the previous blog entry.

At 2:57pm, "onelight321" makes a critical but entirely rational-sounding and polite comment.

He even writes, "if only Hillary had let loose with the authentic human and connecting voice she found in the last three months of the campaign."

At 3:19pm, "onelight321" is a total freak.

As in "I'm sorry your deeply flawed, unscrupulous, despicable candidate lost. Ok, I'm not really sorry, as she is an insane sociopath."

So here's the mystery.

What could have happened in the intervening 22 minutes?

- Could a fellow student at the computer center, or a fellow inmate at the prison library, have jumped on, read the screen onelight123 left open, and taken advantage of onelight321's still-logged-in blogger identity?

- Did he post a comment before reading the item, only to read the item and become angry as all get-out - prompting the second, crazy comment?

- Is it a case of subconscious rage breaking free of the chains of repression? A Jeckyll and Hyde kind of thing?

- Might Obama have distributed different talking points during those 22 minutes, and onelight obediently switched gears?

- Crack? That stuff works pretty fast. Or so I'm told.

- Could both comments have come from two members of the same family? Meaning, perhaps onelight #1 is the mother, and #2 is her drain-bamaged 22 year old son? I'm talking likely demographics here people.

I fear this mystery may never be solved. Cool beans, though. I'd love to hear your theories (all three of you).

And no, of course I did not miss the irony of a guy posting two comments that actually demonstrate precisely the point I'm trying to make. Comment #1: how to blame Hillary for everything but in a polite and conciliatory manner. Comment #2: how to blame Hillary for everything in a way that confirms why I don't want to be part of a club that has people like that as members (and neither should you).

Feeling rather smug, I am.

UPDATE: As much as I don't want to spoil the fun, I think I've figured out at least one thing that happened in the past 22 minutes. It seems our new, demented friend spent time reading the rest of the posts, leaving comments similar to #2 (above) hither and yon.

So this what I think happened.

The Obama campaign sent out new talking points to their little blogger buddies telling them to be nice and giving them some suggestions. Phrases like "authentic human voice" sound exactly like what you'd get from a media hack. But onelight123 couldn't hold it together, for the very reasons I point out in my post. He couldn't stand to see someone - a girl, no less - disagreeing with him. He had to assert his moral superiority.

And that's what so much of this all comes down to, isn't it. Narcissistic - or insecure - guys who can't stand it when girls 'refuse' to agree with them.

Well, sucks to be them.

Read more!

:: We Should Not Vote for Obama

If we do something, things still might stay the same.
If we do nothing, we KNOW they will stay the same.

I didn't think I could get any more disgusted. But here we go again.

This is tonight's edition of the New York Times' Opinionator, written by Chris Suellentrop. Here's the link, but I'm going to quote the whole thing here.

Emphasis added:

Maybe it was her night after all: Hillary Clinton decided not to withdraw from the presidential campaign tonight, and the liberals in blogville are not happy about it, to put it mildly.

Matthew Yglesias of The Atlantic begins his blog post on Clinton’s speech by writing, “I probably shouldn’t write any more about this woman and her staff. Suffice it to say that I’ve found her behavior over the past couple of months to be utterly unconscionable and this speech is no different.”

He continues, "I think if I were to try to express how I really feel about the people who’ve been enabling her behavior, I’d say something deeply unwise. Suffice it to say, that for quite a while now all of John McCain’s most effective allies have been on Hillary Clinton’s payroll."

At The American Prospect’s Tapped blog, Dana Goldstein calls Clinton’s speech “troublesome.” “The more I think about it, the more it seems that Hillary’s entire speech was manufactured to rile up her supporters — instead of priming them to shift their allegiance to Obama,” Goldstein writes. “Yes, there’s a situation with Michigan and Florida. But is it really fair for Clinton to claim that her 18 million supporters nationwide have been made ‘invisible?’ Who’s supposed to be the bad guy here, scary Howard Dean? Clinton is offering more fighting rhetoric. But the fight should be over. Hillary tonight was a woman standing down more than half her party’s supporters and practically the entire Democratic establishment.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait uses even tougher language. “I’d say that anybody on her staff who cares about their party has a moral obligation to publicly quit and endorse Obama,” he writes at The Plank, TNR’s staff blog. Chait also writes of the speech:

“Incredible. She justifies her continuing the campaign by saying that she finished the campaign. She doesn’t concede that Obama has a majority of delegates, let alone that he’s won. She repeats her bogus popular vote argument. She congratulates Obama’s campaign on its “achievements,” but barely musters a single good word about him.”

Chait’s colleagues at The New Republic are almost as exercised. Isaac Chotiner, also writing at The Plank, calls the speech “combative and petty” and headlines his post, “A Total Disgrace.” He concludes, “If Clinton wants people to believe that she cares more about the Democratic Party than her own career, she is failing badly.” Noam Scheiber says the speech was “outrageous,” “delusional,” and “inflammatory.” Scheiber writes at The Stump, TNR’s campaign blog:

“What good could possibly come of this? With Hillary proclaiming herself the legitimate winner, they’re clearly going to say “keep going.” If she actually does keep going, that’s a disaster for the Democratic Party. And if she doesn’t, you’ve just drawn a ton of attention to the fact that a large chunk of the party doesn’t accept Obama as the legimiate nominee. No, worse: you’ve encouraged them to think that, then drawn attention to it. What a disaster.”

End quote.

So, according to these geniuses, the number one priority is healing the rift in the party and bringing Hillary's supporters over to Obama. So say Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam.

In fact, they criticize Hillary for being "petty," "combative," and "inflammatory."

And yet it's Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam who go out of their way to insult Hillary, her staff and her supporters. They cannot muster one gracious word. They can't stifle one petty, combative, inflammatory comment. Apparently they just can't help it. Their nastiness - their hatred just brims over.

And that angry, angry Bill Clinton! Why, Obama's bully boys would never show anger! No, Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam are the very picture of cool and conciliatory thinking.

And they wonder why we don't want to join them.

Can they not hear themselves?

Are they stupid?

Or are they still so high off the past six months of proclaiming how much more intelligent, more ethical, more strategic, more educated and more wealthy they are than those lowly Clinton supporters that they've burnt out a critical mass of brain cells?

Are they addicted to the ego boost?

Is Obamamania the political equivalent of crack? And are these guys too far gone to be saved?

The answer to all those questions is "yes," especially #3.

These guys have breathed in - and out - the fumes from so many self-congratulatory Obama homages and ego-boosting anti-Clinton bromides that they have lost their critical faculties.

Political crackheads. That's what we're left with.

Well, I'm not having it and I don't think you should either.

As the video I posted earlier says, we loathe Ronald Reagan for having tacitly allowed the so-called Southern Strategy to drum up racist support for his 1980 campaign.

Barack Obama has tacitly allowed a - what shall we call it? Testosterone strategy? That doesn't even do it justice. Its an insult to testosterone. What do you call it when a candidate walks on stage to Jay-Z's "[I've got] 99 Problems [but a bitch ain't one]"? A Prick Strategy? Well, that will have to do.

To get elected, Reagan benefited from the racist Southern Strategy. He never denounced the racism drummed up on his behalf.

To get elected, Obama benefited from the sexist, misogynist Prick Strategy. He's never denounced the sexism and misogyny slung on his behalf.

And I doubt he ever will.

Look, we don't need to agonize over this. Obama and his supporters don't want support from feminists. They don't respect us. This is not a hard decision.

In November, I will vote down-ballot. But I won't vote for President. (Forget doing a write-in, no one counts them). And then I will look for the total numbers of votes cast, and the total numbers of votes cast for President. Subtract the total number of votes cast for President from the total number of votes cast for a down-ballot item. The remainder is the protest vote.

Say No in November.

We can do it!


Read more!

:: A few thoughts on tonight

Why do I strongly doubt everyone would feel so "offended" about a candidate not conceding and supposedly not showing signs of grace tonight if that candidate weren't female? (Isn't it amazing that even when you're running for the highest office in the land, it's all about whether you're nice enough? Women are just expected to be nice in a way that men aren't, and it is so embedded in our culture that people can't even see beyond it.) The woman still won a freakin' primary today - today, when it's all supposed to be over, and people are still voting for her. And after she won a primary by over 30 points on Saturday. I just don't remember Mike Huckabee getting the same amount of scorn from the MSM even when it was over on the Republican side (and not nearly as close), but he was still in the race and still winning primaries. He could take his sweet time and make sure his supporters felt respected.

The MSM, the Obama campaign, and the DNC better wake up fast to the amount of bitterness there is out there among Clinton's voters, and it's not just some kooky old white women and ignorant racist rednecks, as the media keeps trying to portray. And the more they act like they did tonight, they more I just want to stay home in November. If this party and this campaign thinks they can win without the women and other voters who supported Clinton, we can certainly try to test that premise, but I don't think it's going to work so well. And while I'm glad Obama finally acknowledged his grandmother tonight and tried to acknowledge Clinton's contributions to the race, it's going to take a little bit more than that.

I am also sure that I am not the only woman who was stunned at how much sadness I felt tonight realizing that we aren't going to see a woman president any time soon, how that dream is just gone for now. It took 24 years after Geraldine Ferraro to get to this point. How long is it going to take to get back here? It's 2008, I'm going to be 31 years old tomorrow (and how sad was I to hear that I share a birthday with Dorothy Rodham, who will also face tomorrow filled with a sense of what could have been, though so much more so), and it feels like time, and I hate that that is gone. As if the bitterness of this race isn't enough, I think that's a reality as well. I knew what was going to happen tonight, and yet watching it slip away was unbelievably painful. Yes, it's a historic night, but can we also acknowledge the loss that so many of us also feel?
Read more!

:: Yes, I Will Not Vote For Obama

Watch this and tell me that despite this, its worth it to vote for this man. I'll take my chances with four years of McCain.

Well, kids, I've fallen a bit behind. I only watched this today, though its been out for weeks if not months. And lord knows its not because I've been working so hard.

I don't need any reminders to stimulate my antipathy towards Obama. But months from now, maybe it'll begin to fade - I doubt it, but maybe - and that's when I'll return to this video.

You have to watch the whole thing for the impact to settle in, because the cumulative effect is the whole point. Would that I had the ability to re-cut it and add some additional material that needs to be in there: the "tea in exotic locales" comment (Obama), the "specious claim to experience" comment (Kristof), the verbal vomit of Father Pfleger. [Also to correct that one typo!] More than any other time in my life, I want to learn video editing.

Read more!

:: Why She's Still Fighting

Yes, its for the principle - and because she wants Democrats to win

Just thought I'd share a few poll numbers with the three of you. If you have any doubt about why Hillary is still fighting for the nomination, let these figures be your guide.

Quinnipiac University
Florida
McCain 45, Obama 41
Clinton 48, McCain 41

Ohio
McCain 44, Obama 40
Clinton 48, Mccain 41

Pennsylvania
Obama 46, McCain 40
Clinton 50, McCain 37

Rasmussen Reports
Florida
McCain 50, Obama 40
Clinton 47, McCain 41

Survey USA
Missouri
McCain 48, Obama 45
Clinton 48, McCain 46

North Carolina
McCain 51, Obama 43
Clinton 49, McCain 43

I'll be the first to say "snapshot" head-to-heads are pretty useless in terms of predicting the eventual results. That said, these numbers are pretty bad for Obama with regard to the argument of the moment.

Now, in related business, let's check in with our favorite constituency - those white female swing voters - the compassionate conservative women - who should be the holy grail of any Democratic presidential campaign. You know, one of the constiuencies Obama ignores.

Gallup has some new research to share.

May 21, 2008
Obama Faces Uphill Climb vs. McCain Among
White Voters
by Frank Newport

Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee, will likely enter the general election with more of a handicap among white voters than would have been the case if Hillary Clinton had been the nominee, based mainly on Clinton's stronger performance among white women.

A new Gallup Poll analysis of Daily tracking data collected between May 1 and May 17 shows that Clinton's edge among white voters is not, as some have hypothesized, based on Obama's problems among blue-collar white men, but reflects more the fact of Clinton's strength among white women.

White Male Voters

In general, Obama and Clinton perform exactly the same among non-Hispanic white men when pitted against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. Both Obama and Clinton lose to McCain among this group by 21-point margins, 36% to 57%.

There has been discussion of Obama's presumed problem among blue-collar white males should he win the Democratic nomination. The current analysis shows that relative to Clinton, however, Obama does not suffer from a large "blue-collar male" deficit as has been hypothesized. Obama loses to McCain in a hypothetical matchup among non-college-educated white men by 25 points, while Clinton loses by 20 points.

Additionally, Obama has a compensatory strength among white-collar men, defined here as those with a college education. Among this group, Obama loses to McCain by 13 points while Clinton loses by 22 points.

All in all, these data suggest that the Democrats' probable nomination of Obama rather than Clinton does not mean Democrats will enter the general election with a bigger deficit among white men than they would have if Clinton were the nominee. The data from May suggest that Clinton may have done only slightly better than Obama against McCain among blue-collar white men, and that this slight advantage likely would have been offset by Obama's slight advantage among college-educated men.

White Female Voters

Among non-Hispanic white women, however, there is a significant difference in the way the two Democratic candidates perform against McCain.

While Obama loses to McCain by 16 points among non-Hispanic white women with no college, Clinton ties McCain. And while Obama does manage to squeak out a four-point advantage over McCain among college-educated white women, Clinton has an 11-point margin.

Although there has been a great deal of discussion of the problems that await Obama among white men should he win the Democratic nomination, this analysis suggests that while McCain certainly has a strength among this group, it is no more of a strength against Obama than it would be against Clinton. Clinton's slight advantage among blue-collar white men is offset by Obama's advantage among white-collar white men.

The bigger issue appears to be Obama's problems among white women, when compared to how Clinton would perform among this group.

Obama loses to McCain by nine points among white women, while Clinton wins by three points. Clinton does better than Obama among both blue-collar and white-collar white women.

All in all, although both Democrats are to a degree handicapped against McCain among white voters, Clinton would perform better than Obama in a general-election matchup among non-Hispanic whites. Combining white voters of both genders, the current analysis shows that McCain wins over Obama among whites, 53% to 38%, and beats Clinton by a considerably smaller 51% to 42% margin.

It is important to note that Obama runs about as well vs. McCain as Clinton does, and both Democrats currently maintain a slight advantage over McCain in general-election trial heats. So any weaker relative performance for Obama vs. McCain among a demographic group (such as white women or lower-educated voters) is made up for by a stronger relative performance among another group (such as blacks or higher-educated voters).

This would not be so much of a problem if the Obama campaign did not appear to be pathologically unable to reach out to any constituency that does not catagorically prefer him. Okay, that was not well put. I'll try it a different way. He hasn't done a single thing to reach out to white women specifically, even thought the campaign knew he had a problem there as far back as the New Hampshire primary election night, and Axelrod talked about writing off working class whites, saying they never vote Democratic anyway.

This is echt Obama. Remember how he ignored Hillary at the SOTU? His body language at the last three-way debate? When Obama feels dissed, he disses back. He tries to cut the person / group off. He shuns them. He disengages. He's the opposite of Senator Clinton, who carefully and systematically won over her many of her enemies by engaging them on substantive matters. She is a fighter. He cuts his losses and turns his back, literally and figuratively.

My prediction: lowest gender gap among independents since 1996, advantage goes to McCain.

Read more!

:: My baloney has a first name; it's N-A-R-A-L

This was so amazingly lame I felt it deserved it's own blogpost and not just a comment on ciccina's. Here's the transcript from the web chat NARAL held yesterday in response to the tremendous backlash that followed their endorsement of Barack Obama for president. Some of the questions seem pretty clearly planted by members of the NARAL staff. But most questioners really tried to get NARAL to be straightforward about why they were jumping on the Obama bandwagon at this late date.

Craig:

Was it really necessary to endorse Sen. Obama before the primary ended when both candidates are pro-choice? Can't NARAL criticize Sen. McCain's record on choice without having to simultaneously support only one Democrat?

Elizabeth Shipp:

The vast majority of voters still don’t know just how pro-choice Barack Obama is and how anti-choice John McCain has been during the quarter-century he has been in Washington, DC. Many voters who may be inclined to support McCain don’t know his positions on specific issues, particularly his consistent opposition to a woman’s right to choose. They believe instead that John McCain is a “moderate” and a “maverick” so assume he must be pro-choice.

Senator Obama needs an organization like ours to help close the identification gap with key voting constituencies before the fall campaign begins in earnest and people’s opinions are already formed about the two candidates. We can help ensure a pro-choice victory in November, but only if we act now.

Without a clear Democratic nominee, Sen. John McCain has been getting a free ride with the media, and a critical voting bloc that could very well swing the election: pro-choice Independent and Republican women. These women could very well make the difference between a pro-choice president in the White House and another four years of anti-choice policies from John McCain.

With our endorsement, John McCain’s free ride ends.

Sadly, no matter how many different ways the questions was asked, Shipp and Keenan stuck to their unsatisfying talking points. The comments on the chat reflect that readers found it as unsatisfying as I did:

By Hillary or Bust on May 16, 2008 5:38 PM

Wow...that chat was just...scary. I don't know if you are just rationalizing, naive, or downright stupid. And I don't believe for a minute that you thought carefully enough about the potential for backlash in your decision.

By Sarah Taby on May 16, 2008 9:12 PM

I just read the transcript of your contrived web talk. That was rediculous. Your organization and Nancy made no sense and continue to make no sense. Why can't you confess that you made a huge mistake? I think the many people who have expressed their anger at your endorsement should join together and protest in front of your headquarters until you accept your mistake and acknowledge our feelings in a more real and less paranizing manar. I want one of you talking heads to really address our disgust and anger!

A number of the commenters were appropriately ticked by Keenan's response to POLITICO, basically telling angry Clinton supporters (and even Obama supporters) to get over themselves. "In response to the current controversy, Keenan says people will get over their 'broken hearts.'" Oh, yeah. That'll bring 'em back to you, Nancy! The article is a fine read. NARAL may have been trying to ensure their place in the new administration, but they have succeeded in pissing off a number of women leaders on the Hill. Good job! That should help the movement! Read more!

:: Shame on NARAL

With one despicable endorsement, Nancy Keenan puts the last nail in NARAL's coffin.

First, let's get one thing straight: NARAL is irrelevant. Those of us within the movement who have had the misfortune of attending their yearly galas know its more like a wake than a celebration. Gone are the clusters of members of Congress and celebrities.

Gone are the tables featuring the big-dog presidents of major organizations. What's left are a bunch of interns and low level staff sent to fill up the seats at the tables their employers paid for. NARAL has virtually no grassroots and they've been invisible so far in the presidential race. We all knew that when Kate left NARAL was going to go D-List. But I didn't think things would end in such a embarrassing way.

As I'm sure you know, they've endorsed Obama. I could not be more disgusted. I guess they forgot that they are supposed to support champions for choice, not just the guy who fills out the questionnaire okay. I guess they have forgotten how important ICPD is, VAWA, SCHIP and so on. I note that in NARAL's endorsement statement they don't list any substantial accomplishments Obama has made on women's issues.

Apparently none of that matters.

And apparently Obama's squirmy position on choice has been forgotten too. So let's refresh our memories, shall we? I'll point back to three previous entries at the Canary that discuss this problem.

First there are his answers at last month's Compassion Forum in Gratham, Pennsylvania. To be clear, he refers to himself as pro-choice. But he also uses language that should worry women's rights advocates. It should worry them because the point of using waffle language like this is to imply that you would be willing to deal around the edges. He sounds very uncomfortable - like he's trying to squirm around the questions.

"I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past."

There is also this answer to a question about life beginning at conception:

"What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

Pondering moral issues is fine in the context of personal decisions. When it comes to legal frameworks, "moral weight" sounds a lot like something you balance against a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Actually, it reminds me Justice Kennedy's dreadful opinion from the last time SCOTUS took this up.

How about this, from the RH Reality Check candidate questionnaire:

Question: Does (the candidate) support any restrictions on abortion, or does s/he believe it should be entirely up to women?

Obama's answer: Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade."

Again, every restriction we have on the books has been considered by the Supreme Court to be consistent within Roe's framework.

Again, not a leader. Not a champion.

And neither is NARAL. Say goodnight, Nancy.

Read more!

:: A Good Man

Do read this essay, "Go, Hillary, I'm With You!" by Dr. Syed Manssor Hussain, published in the Daily Times, "The Leading News Resource of Pakistan." Not only is it a thoughtful piece that brings up a few points that would never see the light of day in a U.S. publication, its quite lovely to see a man self-identify as a feminist. But you get this kind of thing when our issues are discussed in an "international" context... the U.S. is falling further and further behind in addressing women's issues.

I take issue, however, with one point that Dr. Hussain seems to make - that feminism has diminished in relevance as more women's rights have been realized. While it is certainly true that we have made enormous progress, the sense that its "mission accomplished" is largely a product of the sexism and misogyny of our public discourse. The major area where this is clear is violence against women. As a nation, we take it for granted that sexual violence is persistant and that women are "natural victims." We have no national strategy to combat sexual violence, and in general, the discussion of the topic is rife with horrific bias and scorn (much of which is directed at male victims, especially those who are incarcerated). As a matter of policy, we are uninterested in the high level of sex crimes that go unreported because of lack of faith in the legal system and the fear of shame and stigma.

And we seem to have no problem that certain areas, at certain times, are as "off-limits" to women as they would be in a developing country. When you consider the number of places that a woman cannot go, unaccompanied by a male, for fear of gender based punishment, the reality of our lives doesn't look all that dissimilar to those of women in more obviously oppressive situations.

Like I said, this is all taken for granted as a "natural" state of affairs. There are no large scale policy initiatives or programs. We're supposed to accept that this is our lot in life - to be wary of walking alone in a parking lot, to know if you've been drinking its quite possible someone could sexually abuse you without legal repercussions.

No, the feminist agenda is by no means irrelevant. But it has been fragmented by stupid decisions (supporting Barack over Hillary, for one) that minimize its clout and all but silenced by the media. Read more!

:: Obama on Choice - "I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework"

The only way Barack could give a more weaselly answer on choice would be if he were an actual weasel.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were both asked about their position on reproductive choice at a recent candidate forum. Didn't hear about it? Maybe that's because the political chattering class has decided, once again, that "women's issues" don't matter - no suprise there. Maybe its also because this time around, women's groups aren't clamoring after the candidates to clarify their positions and raise the profile of these vital issues.

This time around, most feminist leaders are silent. Perhaps that's part of the reason even dedicated feminists like myself only come across items like this from specialized news clipping services (aka the kid in charge of the clips).

The following statements by Clinton and Obama on reproductive choice are excerpted from a CNN transcript from the "Democratic Candidates Compassion Forum" at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, on April 13, 2008.

Let's start with Clinton's section, because it reflects the gold standard in statements of this nature. She addresses the legal, moral and public health aspects of the issue and places it in global context.

QUESTION:

Senator, do you believe personally that life begins at conception?

CLINTON:

I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.

But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society.

And as some of you've heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.

And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.

I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third.

And I think we have to do even more.

And I am committed to doing that. And I guess I would just add from my own personal experience, I have been in countries that have taken very different views about this profoundly challenging question.

Some of you know, I went to China in 1995 and spoke out against the Chinese government's one child policy, which led to forced abortions and forced sterilization because I believed that we needed to bear witness against what was an intrusive, abusive, dehumanizing effort to dictate how women and men would proceed with respect to the children they wished to have.

And then shortly after that, I was in Romania and there I met women who had been subjected to the Communist regime of the 1970s and '80s where they were essentially forced to bear as many children as possible for the good of the state. And where abortion was criminalized and women were literally forced to have physical exams and followed by the secret police and so many children were abandoned and left to the orphanages that, unfortunately, led to an AIDS epidemic.

So, you know, when I think about this issue, I think about the whole range of concerns and challenges associated with it and I will continue to do what I can to reduce the number and to improve and increase the care for women and particularly the adoption system and the other opportunities that women would have to make different choices.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen Nicaragua mentioned in her answer, because everyone needs to hear over and over again that the end-point of the "pro-life" doctrine is the real death of real women, and moreover, that this end-point is considered acceptable in the "pro-life" moral framework. I would also like to hear the First Amendment / Establishment Clause argument brought up, because people seem to forget that the Constitution explicitly prohibits the government from privileging one religious viewpoint over another. But that's me. Overall, Senator Clinton's answer is fine.

Later in the forum, Senator Obama responded to similar questions.

QUESTION:

Senator Obama, the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion is a decision to be made by a woman, her family and her doctors. However, the vast majority of Americans similarly believe that abortion is the taking of a human life.

The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?

OBAMA:

I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. Number one, it requires us to acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.

The second thing, once we acknowledge that, is to recognize that people of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.

And we've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.

But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.

And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.

We're not going to completely resolve it. I mean, there -- you know, at some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.

Those of us, like myself, who believe that in this difficult situation it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family.

I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past.

QUESTION:

Senator, do you personally believe that life begins at conception? And if not, when does it begin?

OBAMA:

This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on.

I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question.

What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.

Where to begin. He does self-identify as pro-choice (see bold text). That is good. He does it as part of a statement that props up the canard that pro-choice people haven't been sensitive to moral issues - that we're concerned with rights while they are concerned with values - but, whatever. He's bringing us together.

Then Obama does something unexpected - he raises the morality bar. Its not enough to prevent the need for abortion - we should prevent circumstances "that might even lead somebody to consider" abortion. But, you know, whatever.

Obama then states that he trusts the judgment of the woman - and her entourage: "Those of us, like myself, who believe that in this difficult situation it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family."

I know that's the configuration that polls the best - but really, that's quite a lot of people to all squeeze into an examination room. And what if you don't have a pastor? Maybe the court can appoint one for you. But things like spousal consent, mandatory lectures, waiting periods and so aren't really up for discussion. So, like, whatever.

And here's the doozy: "I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past."

Now that's what I like to see - a hard and fast commitment to upholding the right to privacy, the right to control one's own reproductive processes without government intrusion. I mean, what part of "I think we will continue to suggest" doesn't say "you can count on me"? And what does "at least" mean? "At least" now, until we can come up with something better? Or "at least" until we all agree on this? Perhaps "at least" now, until we have 100% sexual responsibility, no mishaps, no genetic anomalies, no adverse life-changing events? I am truly curious.

The next bit, "this is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on" just strikes me as funny. Is he not sure whether he's resolved for himself whether life begins at conception? Maybe he should ask himself. No wait, he just did. [sigh] I think if you're not sure whether you've come to a firm resolution, its pretty safe to say that you've haven't come to a firm resolution.

But what follows is not funny: "What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates." Taking "moral weight" into consideration sounds very much like what Justice Kennedy did in the last major Supreme Court decision on choice.

If these words were spoken by a Republican candidate, we all know what we'd conclude. But somehow, with Obama, we're supposed to just accept that what he says is not what he means, or what he will do. We're all supposed to understand, as Samantha Power put it in her BBC interview, that there are some things you say on the campaign trail that don't carry over into governing. But why? Senator Obama - the Man With the Golden Tongue - is all about words.

What bothers me the most about these words is that they reek of stigma. He sounds almost ashamed to be pro-choice, like he needs to defend and explain, couch and coddle his way around a very unpalatable stance.

He sounds tentative, timid, apologetic. Not at all like the champion he purports to be, the champion that - for pity's sake, after all these years! - we women deserve.

Read more!

:: All right I've had just about enough of you people

Seriously. If I have to watch yet another dumb-ass Democratic political male tearfully apologize for something he knew was wrong while he'd been doing it for years, I'm going to join the Southern Baptist Convention. And if I have to read yet another 3rd wave feminist screed about how all the second wave feminists are thoughtless bigots, I am just going to vote for McCain. And finally, if I have to read again about how a Clinton supporter has made an idiotic or misguided comment, I'm going to vote for Ralph Nader. Happily, I don't have to respond to any of these because since everyone must have something to say in response to somebody's article or blog, someone has already responded for me. But still, I'm about to declare myself an election-free zone. Wake me when we've got a nominee.

Instead, I choose to meditate on issues like whether baby koalas can hold their own eucalyptus leaves.
Tiny Baby Koala


Ahhh...that's better....
Read more!

:: Screw You Guys - I'm Going Home

Obama's campaign has become part of the problem, not the solution... and I'm not going to let it slide.

I’ve haven’t posted comments anywhere for a while, not only because my foster dog ate the internet, but because I’m sick of the Obamamites. However a comment I saw today on http://www.pollster.com/ really inspired me. The comment was this:

As a under 50,000, 50 year old part of the throw away class of women you are speaking of, let me just reassure you I am college educated and I can recognize a load of male bullcrap when I hear it I will not be voting dem if your dream guy get the nomination. Oh and by the way I have never voted for a rep before, but; I guess there is always a first time. Posted by: vera t February 21, 2008 10:45 PM

This really struck a chord with me. I think its also in line with Buffy's post about "invisible women." In response, I wrote:

"I just want to express my appreciation to Vera T for her comment about being "part of the throw away class of women" in this election. That is EXACTLY how I feel.

I noticed last night that once again, Obama mentioned the need to inspire the American people to "go beyond the racial divisions and the religious divisions and the regional divisions.” He seemed to go out of his way to not mention gender (just like, for example, in his MLK day speech when he mentioned racism, “occasional” anti-semitism, homophobia but not misogyny or sexism).

Now the party line from Obama supporters is the Hillary should drop out, despite the fact that the two candidates are running neck-and-neck.

Clearly, the votes, values and interests of people like myself (and Vera T) do not matter to the Obama campaign, nor to the most outspoken Obama supporters. This has been demonstrated in a number of ways, from the content (or lack thereof) of his speeches, to the content (or lack thereof) of his website, and in the strategy that says the votes of my cohort basically don't exist or shouldn’t count.

I have been involved in Democratic politics for my entire career, working exclusively as paid staff for progressive interest groups and Democratic candidates. And I say this now from my heart, not as some sort of veiled threat, but absolutely from my heart - I honestly think that if Obama is the nominee my protest will be to not vote in the general.

Over the course of this campaign, I've heard Hillary's experience minimized and ridiculed, heard every comment parsed for even a hint of exaggeration, I've seen her denigrated for her clothes and her laugh, I've seen her accused of using "feminine wiles" by "turning on the water works" when the fact is she never shed a tear on the campaign trail, I've heard my own vote denigrated as mere sympathy rather than fact- and value-based, I’ve heard Hillary’s daughter called a whore by a prominent newscaster for campaigning with her mother (but nary a word about Mitt’s boys) (believe me, if that newscaster had said Barack was “pimping out” Michelle, he’d be fired and NO ONE would be coming to his defense). I’ve heard Hillary called “ambitious” as if there is something wrong with that, while the obviously equally ambitious male candidates are not criticized. I could go on and on. And who raises a protest? No one. Does Obama say one word about fair play? Never. Is he the beneficiary and sometimes the instigator of this unequal treatment? Obviously.

I'm not going to go into the ways misogyny permeates our culture. I've traveled and lived outside of the United States and I've observed overseas development programs that address gender inequality, so I know whereof I speak. Many countries have national programs that address, for example, violence and discrimination against womenand programs that make it easier for women (and men) to accommodate work and family. Not here. Here, apparently, no one beyond Hillary and her supporters think this is a problem. And no one, outside of Hillary and her supporters, thinks this is worth addressing.

Call my opinion irrelevant, or see me (and Vera T) as canaries in the coal mine. Not only do I not have any enthusiasm for Obama, but I've come to see his campaign as part of the problem. I’m sorry to say it, but as for this longtime Dem activist and one of the “throw away women,” if Obama is the nominee, you boys are on your own."

Before you say it - I know. The Supreme Court. Our foreign policy. The environment. I know, I know. But you know what? I'm sick of it. I'm not going to compromise my principles this time. We survived 8 years of Bush, we'll survive whatever happens next. The fact is, I don't think Obama will be able to beat McCain anyway (I heard MULTIPLE things come out of Obama's mouth in last night's debate that would make excellent negative ads against him). And I'm not sure Obama would be much better than McCain on a lot of issues. Obama has already ceded universal health care. We don't know whether he'd appoint a strongly pro-choice Supreme Court justice, or a "moderate" that appeals to both parties. He has no experience whatsoever in foreign policy - who knows what he could get us into.

And I don't think the Democratic Senate will treat the young new guy any better this time than the Democratic Senate did in 1992 - 1994 with the young new guy Bill Clinton. The first time he doesn't jump when Teddy tells him to, he'll get clobbered. Furthermore, I think he'll reap a whirlwind from the conservatives that will make the vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons look like nothing.

If Obama's the nominee, I'm going to take a cue from his campaign and vote with my heart - and my heart says stay home.

Read more!

:: Kate Michelman Jumps the Shark

Kate has a new pro-Obama statement, and its kinda freaky, in a pod-person sort of way...

Kate's new pro-Obama statement is, well, kind of weird.... see for yourself. Its called "Believing Again" (note: emphasis added and formatting condensed).

The question I have been asking myself and others during my entire life in public policy and throughout this 2008 presidential Campaign -- the question which tens of millions of women and men have also been asking -- is how do we best bring America together in shared purpose, prosperity and, especially, equality.

[snip]

[Like John Edwards] Barack Obama is also calling our nation to the greatness that we all want but that we're uncertain we can still achieve. Others talk about greatness and they even say all the right words, but they do not bring those words to life. Their words do not grab us by the arms and pull us along together.

[snip]

And when I endorsed John Edwards I also knew that Barack Obama shared every one of these concerns, and over the course of Barack's own campaign, the nation has come to believe in him just like I always have as well.

Senator Obama is not just prepared to lead ­ as our beloved Teddy and Caroline Kennedy have said, he is prepared to lead in a way different than we have seen for decades. Not out in front with us behind him, but rather with us beside him. And that difference is all the difference. That difference separates just any president from a great president; and right now, we need a great president.

Barack Obama will be that great president. He will bring us all together. And together, we will change our country. During these past many years, we have lost the sense of what we could do together, who we could be, what was possible. That's changing. And Barack Obama is the one changing that. With him, greatness is again within reach.

First of all, if she always believed in Barack, she should have endorsed him and not Edwards. I guess she just didn't believe in him enough.

Second, what is with the cult-language? I realize that "he will bring us all together" is a main campaign message, but coming from a woman who was at the nexus of one of our most intense (and sometimes violent) cultural conflicts, this sounds bizarre. I guess it depends on what she means by "us." If she's thinking "us" doesn't include the folks over at National Right to Life, the National Council of Catholic Bishops and the neanderthal base of the Republican party, okay maybe. Because I'm certain they're not going to jump into bed with Kate no matter what Barack tells them.

"With him, greatness is in reach" - she sounds like a televangelist or mega-church preacher. Does she really expect people to just swallow that without any specifications about what this "greatness" might entail? Annexing Poland and Czechoslovakia, perhaps?

Third, what is with that "our beloved Teddy and Caroline" crap? She's a hair's breadth (or hare's breath, if you like) from calling Barack our Dear Leader. When was the last time you heard any American call any living politician, in all seriousness, "our beloved"? Freaky.

Last, the most interesting part of her whole statement is this: Barack will lead "Not out in front with us behind him, but rather with us beside him." This, my dears, is the Big Clue. Kate sees herself as part of Barack's circle, in a favored position "beside him"; she wouldn't have such a place next to Hillary. Hillary doesn't need Kate to shore up her feminist credentials - she has her own achievements. But Barack - he needs Kate beside him. He makes her feel valuable. She is a bigger fish in that pond.

In other words, Kate has invalidated everything she preached while she ran NARAL. For years and years she told us that a solid record of standing up for women's rights was of paramount importance in deciding which candidate to support. Now, just because Barack made her feel good about herself, she has thrown away the ideals she championed throughout her career.

Kate is capping off her career by telling us that the principles she fought for aren't so important after all. What a sad way to slide into irrelevance. Read more!

:: Come Look

Check this out. It is really cute.

"I was like....... ..... .. why?" Love it. Read more!

:: Kristof: We're Not Ready for a Feminist President (Part Two)

Nicholas Kristof says our country isn't ready for a feminist President... and that's okay.

The most disturbing part of today’s contribution by Nicholas Kristof to the New York Times’ daily dose of anti-Clintonism (Who Is More Electable?) is this:

Another way of looking at electability is to wonder whether it’s more of a disadvantage to be black or to be female. Shirley Chisholm, the black woman who ran for president in 1972, argued in effect that there were more sexists than racists in America. “I met more discrimination as a woman, than for being black,” Ms. Chisholm once said.

And recent polling and psychology research seem to back that up.

Moreover, my hunch is that a conservative woman like Margaret Thatcher may have a better chance of being elected than a feminist with a distinguished record of standing up for women’s rights. For the same reason, Senator Obama probably has a better chance than a black candidate who emerged from the civil rights movement.

Quite simply, Mr. Kristof asserts that there is too much sexism in our culture to allow a woman to become president – except perhaps for a conservative woman such as Margaret Thatcher, who would disavow feminism and actively reaffirm the traditional power status quo.

Mr. Kristof suggests something similar of Senator Obama – that an African-American candidate who lacks a history of standing up for African-American rights is more palatable to whites than one who has directly challenged the status quo. The fact that Senator Obama has no notable accomplishments with regard to civil rights (other than the fact of his candidacy for President) is apparently an asset in this election. That is backhanded praise indeed.

What disturbs me his tacit acceptance of this situation. Instead of encouraging people of good will to recognize and oppose sexism, he treats it like an immutable fact of life. If we don’t challenge it now, how will we ever reach “the right time” for a female President? We already lag behind many countries around the world.

I posted the following comment at the Times in response to the column; I reproduce it here because it never saw the light of day though a comment I posted later showed up. The Times isn’t very timely or careful about posting readers’ comments. Perhaps they are still getting used to the idea.

----------------------

After months of feeling enthusiastic about the prospect of Senator Clinton becoming president, I am finally being worn down. It may be that Mr. Kristof is correct in saying that this country is too steeped in misogyny to elect a woman to its highest office.

Only Senator Clinton is said to have “just” seven years of experience because she was first elected to public office in 2000. The assumption is that the other 28 years of her 35 year career were spent being “just” a wife, an ornament, a figurehead who “poured tea” in exotic locales. I am told that her substantial, demonstrable achievements outside of elected office simply “don’t count.” Yet no one suggests that Mitt Romney’s experience saving the Salt Lake City Olympics or Senator McCain’s experience as a soldier “don’t count” because they didn’t hold elected office at the time.

Only Senator Clinton is criticized for the personal moral failings of her spouse. I am told she should not become President because her husband’s past infidelity would tarnish the White House. But no one suggests that Senator McCain should not become President because he would bring to the White House a spouse who publicly admitted to (and apologized for) drug abuse and embezzlement at a difficult time in her life. No one suggests his moral character is compromised because of the actions of his wife.

Only Senator Clinton is described as someone who would be “nothing” or “nowhere” without her spouse. I frequently hear that her only real achievement is her marriage to a successful man. Yet no one suggests that Senator McCain, whose political career flourished only after he married an heiress whose father bankrolled his campaigns, would be nothing without his wife. No one suggests Mitt Romney would be nowhere if his father had not been a beloved governor.

Only Senator Clinton is posited as ineligible for the office of President because a family member held that office (Andrew Sullivan, for example, recently wrote a column suggesting her candidacy violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution). But members of the Kennedy family are regularly praised for their family’s commitment to public service, and Ted and Caroline are praised for “passing the baton” of JFK and RFK to Senator Obama. No one suggests that future Kennedys should be barred from office because of that family’s disproportionate representation in national politics.

Only Senator Clinton is regularly derided by commentators in the mainstream media, such as MSNBC or the op-ed pages of the Times, for being an “emasculating,” “castrating,” “cold,” “imperious,” “witchy” harridan who is injurious to male self-esteem. But no respectable commentator would dare mock Senator Obama using pernicious racial stereotypes, or suggest that his success comes at the expense of Caucasian America. Instead, such an action would be resoundingly and rightly condemned.

Only Senator Clinton is said to be a “disgrace” to other women because of her actions within her marriage (meaning, because she did not divorce her husband over his infidelity). No one suggests Senator McCain is a “disgrace” to other men because he cheated on and subsequently divorced his first wife after she suffered a disfiguring and debilitating car accident. Senator Clinton’s behavior as a wife is considered integral to her moral character, while Senator McCain’s behavior as a husband is considered tangential or meaningless.

It is has been deemed unimportant – even by certain well-known feminists – that no candidate except Senator Clinton has a track record of working on issues that pertain to gender equality such as the disproportionate level of violence directed at women by men, the dearth of social and governmental support systems for women who choose to give birth and raise children, the degradation of women in the media and the impact this has on the self-esteem and safety of young girls, the trafficking and enslavement of women to supply the demand for commercial sex work, and the myriad gender issues pertaining to human rights and international development. But the fact that a President Obama would make a positive contribution to the self-esteem of young African-Americans is regularly (and rightly) recognized as a feature of his appeal.

Unfortunately, this list could go on and on. The fact that I am learning to face is that very few people – including few “progressives” - actually care if women face prejudice, ridicule, insults, threats of violence or actual violence simply because they are female. Very few people care if women aren’t treated fairly.

Nevertheless I will continue to volunteer and contribute to Senator Clinton’s campaign and hope that she will be our next President.

Read more!

:: Kristof: We're Not Ready for a Feminist President (Part One)

Nicholas Kristof uses lousy logic to claim Obama is more electable than Clinton.

Nicholas Kristof's column today in the New York Times is called Who Is More Electable. It counts towards their quota of presenting at least one anti-Hillary Clinton opinion column per day. Mr. Kristof argues that Hillary is less electable that Barack Obama in a match up against John McCain. For the first installment of today's three part commentary (I woke up seriously early this morning), let's recount and dispatch with his main points.

It's not hard to do:

- Kristof argues that Obama is more electable because he has won more states than Hillary thus far. This is comparing apples and oranges, since caucuses are designed to determine the preferences of the party faithful, not all registered and self-identified Democratic voters. It is also immaterial, since presidential elections aren't won by a count of states; they are won by a count of electoral votes, and the states Obama won have far few electoral votes than those won by Hillary.

- Kristof argues that the endorsement of Obama by Susan Eisenhower means Republicans will vote for him. First of all, who cares about Susan Eisenhower. Ron Reagan Jr. was a Democrat while his dad was in the White House; it didn't indicate that Republicans wanted to cross party lines and vote Democratic. The fact is that when faced with a vehemently anti-choice candidate such as McCain versus a pro-choice Democratic candidate, plenty of Republican women cross party lines. Or call themselves "independents" to save the trouble.

- Kristof cites two polls that show hypothetical match ups with McCain beating Clinton by a percentage within the margin of error, while Obama beats McCain by a percentage within the margin of error. First of all, big deal - the difference is so minor as to be statistically insignificant. Second, we've already seen how off the polls can be when attempting to determine the level of support for Clinton.

- Kristof displays an alarming ignorance of presidential politics by claiming Obama is more electable than Clinton because he as done better in notoriously red states. He doesn't seem to grasp that red states and called red states because they traditionally - some without exception - vote Republican. It doesn't matter that Obama did better than Clinton in Idaho or Alabama, because he will not carry those states. It does matter than Clinton did better in the crucial battleground state (like red states, they are called "battleground" for a reason) of Florida.

- Kristof again compares Obama to JFK, a weird claim. I won't even go into that because its so deeply weird, except to say that the same claim by Teddy and Caroline (and Patrick - don't forget Patrick!) proved to be unpersuasive in the Kennedy's home state of Massachusetts (where Clinton beat Obama by 10 points).

I don't know why Mr. Kristof writes about a topic he clearly knows little about. Hubris, I guess. Lots of people think they can play "political strategist" just because they have an opinion.

He does such a good job reporting and analyzing international affairs, especially the ways policy decisions affect vulnerable people. I wish he would stick to that – it is so very needed.

On domestic politics, he's worse the useless.

... to be continued.... Read more!

:: More on Obama and Abortion

Where does Obama stand on bans of certain abortion procedures?

I am still hot on the trail of actual proof that Obama is fully pro-choice.

This is an important question. Feminists should not be asked, by the Obama campaign or by other feminists, to take on faith the Senator's support for our core issues. There are currently 16 Democratic Senators who are not 100% pro-choice; one is almost entirely anti-choice (Ben Nelson of Nebraska). On the Planned Parenthood Action Fund Congressional Scorecard, Obama is rated 100%, but he has not been in the Senate long enough to vote on 7 of the 14 issues they track. And we all know about the non-votes he made in Illinois.

Regarding bans on certain abortion procedures, check out this statement by Obama, made in answer to a question about "partial birth" abortion shortly before the Iowa caucuses.

"I think there is a large agreement, for example, that late-term abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation. And it should only happen in terms of the mother's life or severe health consequences, so I think there is broad agreement on these issues."

His use of the phrase "severe health consequences" raises the questions of what he thinks of as "severe" and how the government is supposed to go about defining it. Is it a Congressional matter, or something to be taken up state by state? What if the definition of "severe" changes with the elected officials from year to year - how will doctors stay on the right side of the law?

How will we deal with the consequences - doctors who err on the side of caution and refuse to help women even though their physical or mental health will be compromised? Do we want elected officials or doctors telling us that no, you can't have an abortion because carrying to term will only give you high blood pressure, but not necessarily cause a stroke? There are already cases like this in Europe and Latin America; in Poland, for example, a woman was refused permission for an abortion even though carrying to term would render her blind. She did carry to term, and she did go blind as a result. Being blind was not considered to be a "severe" enough consequence; the woman, her husband and her several children disagree.

Beyond this, as a matter of law and of medicine, what is the relevance of there being "large" or "broad" agreement on this issue? Individual rights are protected by the Constitution, not by popularity contests. Medical decisions are determined, ideally, by the person directly involved and the medical professionals of her or his choice. Whether or not a hundred thousand people approve of the decision should not enter into the matter.

Read more!

:: The Answers

A comparative view of the answers from Sens. Clinton and Obama to RH Reality Check's sexual and reproductive health and rights questionnaire.

Its easier to compare the answers from the Obama and Clinton campaign side by side, so I've pasted the answers from both questionnaires into one document. I left the footnotes and links behind and made several small formatting changes, such as numbering the questions.

A number of differences between the candidates are evident. But if you are looking for a smoking gun that shows Obama is a risky bet when it comes to choice, go directly to #8: Does (the candidate) support any restrictions on abortion, or does s/he believe it should be entirely up to women?

The Obama campaigns answer is simply this:

Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

This might fool a newbie, but the rest of us know this means only one of two things. Either the person who filled out the questionnaire is completely ignorant of the topic of the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade, or the campaign has given the most conservative answer it thinks it can get away it and still call Obama a Democrat.

Just to make it perfectly clear, all the restrictions on reproductive choice and the right to privacy that we have right now, including Gonzalez, have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to be compatible with Roe v. Wade. In fact, it was the court's finding in Webster, and then Casey, that a host of restrictions were allowable under Roe that got us into our current mess. To say you support restrictions consistent with Roe is to say you could be in favor of any and all restrictions except spousal consent (knocked down in Webster, I believe, or was it Casey?) and bans with an exception to save the life (but not health) of the woman. Even the choice of phrasing - "Obama supports restrictions that are compatable" rather than "Obama opposes those restrictions that incompatible" - points to a conservative message strategy.

It is terrible that several old guard so-called pro-choice leaders have chosen to overlook the obvious clues that Obama is shaky on choice. Did Kate Michelman, Karen Mulhauser and other candidates know about this answer, and endorse Obama anyway? And what could justify giving a kick in the teeth to a candidate with such a strong feminist background and profound commitment to fighting for women's rights in the U.S. and around the world?

To be perfectly frank, I am baffled and ashamed.

---------------

1. Why do you consider Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton to be the strongest candidate on reproductive health and rights?

Obama:

Throughout his career, Senator Obama has consistently championed a woman's right to choose, earning him 100% ratings from pro-choice groups during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate. In 2005, he was the honorary chair of Planned Parenthood of Chicago Area's Roe v. Wade celebration. And he has not shied away from tough battles. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama worked hand-in-hand with advocacy groups to protect women's reproductive health.

And just last year, Obama was the only U.S. Senator who supported a fundraising initiative to defeat a proposed abortion ban in South Dakota. And Senator Obama was the only presidential candidate to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the opening of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora.

Clinton:

When it comes to each woman's ability to make the most personal of life decisions, Hillary Clinton is a leader. She has stood firm as an advocate for a woman's right to choose and has worked to expand access to family planning services. As First Lady, she went to Beijing and declared that "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights," and as Senator, she has consistently stood up for women's reproductive health and rights.

Throughout her time in the Senate, she has consistently spoken out against relentless efforts by the right wing to rollback women's access to the full range of reproductive health care services. She opposed the nominations of Justices Alito and Roberts, declaring that they represented the gravest threat to Roe v. Wade in history, and she condemned the Supreme Court's April 2007 decision to allow the government to dictate to women what they can and cannot do about their own health.

Senator Clinton has supported every pro-choice bill introduced and voted on since she came into the Senate. She opposed the so-called "partial birth abortion" bill; the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was designed to define a fetus as a person in order to lay the groundwork for overturning Roe v. Wade; the Child Custody Protection Act, which would have made it a crime to accompany young woman across state lines for abortion care; and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would impose a new, complex, national patchwork of parental notice mandates on doctors and young women. She has also co-sponsored legislation to repeal the global gag rule imposed by President Bush, which has resulted in the closure of multiple health clinics in the developing world, reductions in the number of community health workers providing outreach in rural areas, and contraceptive shortages in the countries most in need of family planning services.

Senator Clinton has been a strong leader in advancing women's health and well-being. As First Lady, she helped found the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, which has helped achieve a one-third reduction in teen pregnancy between 1996 and 2005. Working with Senator Patty Murray, she helped lead a three-year effort to make "Plan B" emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after" pill, available over the counter. She also sponsored the Prevention First Act, which expands access to family planning services for low-income women, requires health insurance companies to cover contraception, and provides a dedicated funding stream for age-appropriate, medically accurate, comprehensive sex education. Senator Clinton introduced the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies (CARE) Act, which would ensure that survivors of sexual assault and rape receive necessary medical care, including emergency contraception such as Plan B, and the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act, which would ensure that servicewomen have access to Plan B at military health care facilities. She also co-sponsored legislation to establish an Emergency Contraception Public Education Campaign through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

She has also supported legislation to restore access to privately funded abortion services for U.S. servicewomen and military dependents in overseas military health facilities; lift the ban on international non-governmental organizations that provide to women information on family planning services; prohibit violent protestors, such as anti-abortion activists, from escaping court-ordered fines or judgments by filing for bankruptcy protection; and prohibit funding for federal employee health plans that refuse to provide contraceptive coverage.

In short, Senator Clinton has fought for women's rights for her entire career. She has been a leader on reproductive health care issues in the Senate, and she will remain committed to them when she is President.

2. What sets Sen. Obama’s / Clinton's platform apart from the other contenders on issues of reproductive health and rights?

Obama:

Senator Obama has demonstrated an ability to engage diverse audiences in talking about these issues in an effort to forge consensus. For instance, in December 2006, Obama went to "the political equivalent of the lion's den" when he told a conservative Christian audience in Southern California that abstinence-only education was not enough and that he "respectfully but unequivocally" disagrees with those who oppose condom distribution to fight the AIDS pandemic." Obama drew a standing ovation from the 2,072 pastors and others who came from 39 states and 18 nations.

Similarly, this year at a Planned Parenthood conference, Obama emphasized the need for pro-choice groups to align themselves with religious and community groups that are also working on reducing unintended pregnancy. Obama has also focused on the high teen pregnancy rate. In addition to co-sponsoring the Prevention First Act, Obama has introduced a bill that would devote resources to combating the high teen pregnancy rate in communities of color.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton has been a consistent advocate for women's reproductive health and rights, and she will carry this commitment to the White House as a leader on behalf of all women. When she is President, she will nominate Supreme Court Justices and other federal court judges who believe that the Constitution protects a woman's right to privacy. Senator Clinton knows that reproductive health care is an important part of any woman's overall health, which is why she will ensure that reproductive health care will be part of her plan to provide health care to every single American. As a part of her plan to fight cancer, Senator Clinton has committed to increasing access to screening tools and she has said she will fully fund the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. When she is President, she will continue to strongly support increased funding for Medicaid and Title X, which provide federal funding for family planning and reproductive health care services. She will also work to sign into law the Prevention First Act, which provides federal funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education; provides for equitable coverage of contraception among private plans; and expands access to information about emergency contraception. Senator Clinton has been a leading advocate for women throughout her life, and her policy proposals and platform reflect that dedication.

3. How does Sen. Obama’s / Sen. Clinton's health care plan specifically address sexual and reproductive health, family planning, pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other STDs?

Obama:

Senator Obama believes that reproductive health care is basic health care. His health care plan will create a new public plan, which will provide coverage of all essential medical services. Reproductive health care is an essential service - just like mental health care and disease management and other preventive services under his plan. And private insurers that want to participate will have to treat reproductive care in the same way.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton's health care plan provides guaranteed, affordable, high-quality health care for every single American. It allows those who like their current plans to keep them and provides a new menu of quality health insurance options, including a public plan modeled after Medicare, for those who are dissatisfied with their coverage or don't have any. This Health Choices Menu would include the high-quality plans offered to Members of Congress through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Her health care plan will ensure that all Americans living with HIV/AIDS have access to care and will end insurance discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions, such as HIV/AIDS. Senator Clinton's plan to fight HIV/AIDS includes doubling the HIV/AIDS research budget within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to $5.2 billion annually, including the U.S. contribution toward finding a vaccine. To address the disproportionate burden of HIV/AIDS on minority communities, Senator Clinton will increase funding for the Minority AIDS Initiative and support the prevention and treatment efforts of minority-run community based organizations.

Her plan also increases federal funding for substance abuse treatment. She has also committed to providing at least $50 billion over five years to combat HIV/AIDS around the world. This commitment will establish the United States as a leader in galvanizing the global community around meeting the Millennium Development Goal of halting and beginning to reverse the spread of HIV and other diseases by 2015. She will lead the world in achieving universal access to treatment by doubling the number of people that the United States supports with treatment. The Clinton plan will increase the number of healthworkers in training or in place in Africa by at least one million over a decade and ensure access to medications for all.

4. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton support comprehensive sexuality education? Does s/he believe that the federal government should continue to fund abstinence-only-until marriage programs, despite evidence that they are ineffective at preventing unintended pregnancy and STDs?

Obama:

Yes, Senator Obama supports comprehensive sex education. He believes that we should not continue to fund abstinence-only programs. Over the last decade, the federal government has spent $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars on "abstinence-only" programs that have not been successful.

While abstinence is one approach to reducing unintended pregnancies and STDs, Obama believes we should also support comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.

Obama is an original co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, which will ensure that all taxpayer-funded federal programs are medically accurate and include information about contraception.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton introduced legislation to provide federal funding for comprehensive, medically accurate, age-appropriate sex education. She believes that abstinence-only programs have not been shown to be effective, and, as President, she would support programs that send a strong message to young people that they should delay sexual activity while giving them the information they need to make responsible decisions and protect themselves.

5. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton support adolescents' access to confidential family planning and reproductive health services, without having to seek permission from their parents? Why or why not?

Obama.

Yes. As the father of two daughters, Senator Obama understands that parents do not want to imagine their teenage child might need to seek counsel on reproductive health. He believes, first and foremost, that parents should be the first and primary source of support. But Obama also recognizes that not every child is in a loving home with a parent or trusted adult to turn to in such a situation. For young women in such circumstances, Obama wants to be sure that there is access to a trained health care provider that can provide needed services or help them make good decisions.

Clinton:

Yes. Senator Clinton supports access to confidential health care for all Americans. She believes families should be involved in any life decision involving their daughter, but recognizes that in some cases, that type of involvement is neither healthy nor appropriate.

6. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton believe that contraception should be covered by private insurance plans and under insurance plans for federal employees? Why or why not?

Obama:

Yes.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton has been a strong supporter of the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act, which would require private health plans to cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related medical services to the same extent that they cover prescription drugs and other outpatient medical services. This bill seeks to establish parity for prescription contraception. She has also co-sponsored legislation to prohibit funding for federal employee health plans that refuse to provide contraceptive coverage. And she cosponsored the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act to correct a provision included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006 that cuts off every college and university health clinic and hundreds of safety net providers from being able to offer affordable contraceptives to students and lower income women.

7. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton agree with the FDA's decision to make emergency contraception over the counter for people 18 and over? Does s/he think adolescents should be able to access emergency contraception over the counter as well? Why or why not?

Obama:

Senator Obama supports the FDA's decision to make emergency contraception available over the counter for people 18 and over. Obama recognizes that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical experts have reported that EC use is safe for women of all reproductive age and have called for improved access to EC. Although Obama strongly believes that parents or other trusted adults should be engaged in all reproductive health decisions involving teenagers and adolescents, he also recognizes that not every young women has access to such support. As such, he does believe that teenagers should be able to access EC over the counter. As noted above, he supports the right of adolescents to seek confidential family planning services.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton led a three-year fight to pressure the FDA to make a decision on Barr Pharmaceutical's application to sell Plan B over the counter, and she was pleased when the decision was made to approve the application, in line with the overwhelming consensus of the research community that the drug was safe and effective for over the counter use and the recommendation of every major health care organization. At the time of the decision, she urged the FDA to revisit placing age restrictions on the sale of Plan B, and still believes that it is the path we ought to take. She agrees with the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation that emergency contraception is safe and effective, can help to prevent unintended pregnancy among teenagers, and should not be confused with mifepristone.

8. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton support any restrictions on abortion, or does she believe it should be entirely up to women?

Obama:

Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton believes abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. She has worked throughout her career to accomplish that goal by working to reduce the teen pregnancy rate and providing greater access to family planning. She strongly opposed the so-called "partial birth abortion" bill when it was considered by the Senate. She supported an alternative bill that, consistent with Roe v. Wade, would have prohibited post-viability abortions except when, in the medical judgment of an attending physician, abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.

9. Does Sen. Obama / Clinton support the Hyde amendment? Under what circumstances does s/he believe that Medicaid should cover abortions (all pregnancies, life- or health- threatening pregnancies, pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest, extreme fetal malformation)?

Obama:

Obama does not support the Hyde amendment. He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.

Clinton:

No. Senator Clinton does not support the Hyde amendment. She believes low-income women should have access to the full range of reproductive health care services.

10. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton believe adolescents should have the right to choose abortion, or should they be required to seek their parents' consent? Why or why not? Are there any circumstances that might make a compelling case for waiving the parental consent requirement?

Obama:

As a parent, Obama believes that young women, if they become pregnant, should talk to their parents before considering an abortion. But he realizes not all girls can turn to their mother or father in times of trouble, and in those instances, we should want these girls to seek the advice of trusted adults - an aunt, a grandmother, a pastor.

Unfortunately, instead of encouraging pregnant teens to seek the advice of adults, most parental consent bills that come before Congress or state legislatures criminalize adults who attempt to help a young woman in need and lack judicial bypass and other provisions that would permit exceptions in compelling cases.

Clinton:

Senator Clinton believes families should be involved in any life decision involving their daughter, but recognizes that in some cases that type of involvement is neither healthy nor appropriate. She does not believe the federal government can dictate healthy families. That is why she supports New York State law that does not require parental consent for minors. In states where that is not attainable, she supports judicial bypass provisions.

11. Does Sen. Obana / Sen. Clinton support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?

Obama:

No.

Clinton:

No. She does not support federal funding for programs that misrepresent facts in order to further a political agenda.

12. If elected president, what specific measures would Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton support for women who choose to become mothers (prenatal care, maternity leave, childcare, healthcare for children)?

Obama:

Under Obama's health care plan, women will be able to receive coverage of prenatal care under the new public health plan. And participating private insurers will be required to provide the same coverage. Obama has proposed a $1.5 billion fund to encourage all fifty states to adopt paid leave programs. Under these programs, women would be entitled to take paid maternity leave.

Clinton:

Ensuring guaranteed, affordable, high-quality health care for all Americans will be Senator Clinton's top domestic priority. She was instrumental in creating the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides health care for six million children today, and she has fought for 15 years to expand access to quality care. Her health care plan will provide access to critical services like prenatal care. She has put forth a bold plan to provide paid leave for new parents and caregivers by 2016, expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to include 13 million new workers, and end pregnancy discrimination. She is also the lead sponsor of legislation to ensure equal pay for women. (Please visit [here] and [here] for more information about Senator Clinton's plans.)

13. Does Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton believe that gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt children?

Obama: Yes.

Clinton: Yes.

14. If elected president, would Sen. Obama / Sen. Clinton overturn the Global Gag Rule or reinstate funding for UNFPA?

Obama:

Yes, Senator Obama would overturn the global gag rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA.

Clinton:

Yes. Overturning the Global Gag Rule and reinstating funding for UNFPA would be among her highest priorities. Senator Clinton has said overturning the gag rule would be one of her first acts as President.

Read more!