Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Why should a committee be in charge of a woman's body?

Obama's abortion formula* drives me nuts. From the debate transcript:

[OBAMA] What ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision.

Because I can't see the logic of it. Either the woman is in the "best position," or a sort of committee, composed of the woman (indeed, we've come a long way), her family, and various religious and medical experts is in the "best position."

Why would Obama believe that a committee is in the "best position" instead of the woman herself?

I can't see the logic of it at all. Why not let the woman decide for herself what kind of help she needs, if any, instead of deciding for her what kind of help she needs?

And, further, it seems to me that Roe matters a lot less than the kind of social norm Obama wants to establish. What if he uses faith-based programs -- as he has said he will -- to turn his beliefs into public policy? So I'm not re-assured by the "litmus test" elsewhere in the transcript at all.

NOTE * One typical response is, "Oh, that's what Obama has to say." A strange sort of faith, where you have to believe your candidate's lying to you in order to support them!

0
No votes yet

Comments

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

And that is you are a more moral person if you have a religion and have religious leaders you can consult.

Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided. I think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.

If you're an atheist, I guess you have no morals and just abort without a second thought. I don't happen to be an atheist but I don't belong to a church either. Does that make me less moral?
It's a bad thing when those of us without a formal religious leaning are taken to be somehow lacking.
Of course, it does get us off the hook when assembling a committee.
Come together at The Confluence

Submitted by jawbone on

Religious Right--and a wink and a nod to women. Those sweeties will believe anything a handsome hunk tells them, right?

I think we should trademark "Obama Bamboozle." We're going to be using it a lot--I fear.

But I will be delighted to be wrong and to see him act act as a liberal and progressive prez.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

--your wishful thinking is based on nothing.

not one action ever, nor even one consistent line of speech or policy proposal by him has ever been truly liberal--and his earlier policy lies have all been replaced since they were spouted.

Submitted by jawbone on

Obama as prez will Change. Every candidate does somewhat. I can only hope he will change toward the progressive and liberal.

And I only have this faint hope, because evidence tells me he will be cautious and careful not to rock any boats. Especially those with big donors.

Again, I will be delighted to be wrong.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

and the fact of the matter is Roe V. Wade has become an indefensible liability.

We're supposed to be grateful that Obama's committee gives the woman some input on the decision, I suppose. But I find his condescension galling.

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

definition? An even uglier implication in his statement.
I don't see where Obama actually says that.
I don't believe that atheists are by definition lacking in morality, by the way, and I don't think most atheists do, either. Nor do most theists, if they are capable of rational thought.

So I call truthiness on this bit of uglification.

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

One of the pillars of his whole raison d'etre is to juxtapose people of faith (Who Are Good, naturally) with - take your pick: pro-choicers, homos, democrats.

At one point or another, he has played all of these cards. I wasn't really hearing it so much in last night's debate, particularly, but it's been one of the more annoying, um, rhetorical tics (I'll be nice) he has.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

and the solution is to pass an Equal Rights Amendment which is crafted to prevent exclusion of any person on any basis from protection of the actual US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I suspect that How Obama Will Govern may not be a long-lived concern. I regret that deeply, but I really think he won't be allowed to complete his first term, if he lives to be inaugurated. The rage and irrationality are too widespread, IMNVHO.

McCain's failing. Palin's failing.

Their supporters have been forced to look that failure in the face, and they're not happy with what they see.

I'm not usually a tinfoil-hat kind of person, really, but I remember what it was like when the Kennedy brothers were assassinated, and Reverend King. The level of outrage among the irrational is, if anything, even higher now than it was then.

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

It seems your implication is that he will be assassinated. Am I wrong?

So essentially, what we are seeing is: If Obama doesn't win it will be because he's black. Even if he wins, he'll be assassinated, probably because he's black. If that's the case, why run him for president at all?

Or are you just saying that the Republicans are just innately crazy and will kill any Dem who wins the presidency?

You make one of the most serious charges that can be made and I'm looking for more insight into your thinking.

jjmtacoma's picture
Submitted by jjmtacoma on

I don't think any of those "acts" will directly benefit women. Women's rights or any policies that directly benefit women will never be a top priority for Obama.

Too many disrespectful crumbs fall out of his mouth when he talks about issues related to women.

He did start out well, IMO, by focusing on Roe-v-Wade as a women's privacy ruling that should remain at a federal level, but he completely screwed up that assertion by mentioning the committee consultation.

scoutt's picture
Submitted by scoutt on

of the hatred from the left. It is despicable.
Did you know, Sarah, that the "kill him" charge has turned out to be false? I by no means am excusing other hateful comments from the right but you are making absolutely disgusting claims that feed and justify equally vile behavior from the left.
Did all of the ACTUAL wishes of Hillary's death have you concerned? Are you worried about Sarah Palin being assassinated since the images of violence (including a rifle to her head on gettyimages!!) are countless?
You elevate Obama to a stature of which he is not worthy. He poses no real challenge to our society and culture because he isn't a true agent of change. Name one risk he has taken? Name one accomplishment of his to advance the lives of his AA community? The symbol of his skin color is what is progressive about his candidacy and that is not the kind of "threat" that inspires assassinations.

Submitted by lambert on

It was never clear to me that Palin heard it, but the charge is outright false?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

but I'm sure it's because they view him as a threat, either way, to their worldview. Maybe some of them hate him for both reasons.

Assassination? Impeachment? Some other foil? I've heard everything from sue to stop the inauguration to shooting or hanging the n***** -- conversationally proposed, as if it was no big deal to say these things. Like anything that doesn't meet their expectations must be illegitimate.
Some of them fondly remember "putting a stop to that recount bullshit in Florida" to keep Gore out of the White House in 2000.

These people cannot believe that Obama could legitimately win; their sworn belief is only by rigging the vote count could anyone defeat McCain, whom they're not crazy about, but if he's elected Palin can always "step up".

So I tell you again that I don't think the people who say this are rational. I don't even think they're all Republicans. I do think they might be dangerous, and I try to avoid them as much as possible.

As far as an insight into my thinking, here it is. I remember that Bobby Kennedy was killed at the apex of his triumph in the California primary. I am afraid that I'm not the only one who remembers that, and I'm also sure I'm not the only one who's afraid it could happen again.

Why run Obama at all? Why not? I mean, it's time we got over being atavistic idiots in this country. It's time we got over being addicted to sameness. It's time we considered that our own personal comfort zones might not be the best thing for our kids or our neighbors or the planet.

Yes, the charge is serious. I think it's imperative that should Obama win, his security be impeccable, because no President before him will have been so rabidly resented.
Not even Bill Clinton.

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0 And 1 John 4:18

scoutt's picture
Submitted by scoutt on

SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him.“

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.

He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.

Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.”

http://www.timesleader.com/news/breaking...

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

I posted Olbermann's call for Obama to "take her into a room and only one of them comes out" months ago.

It's not hate from the left that worries me, either. It's just hate in general. Or don't you remember that George Wallace was shot at a campaign rally too?

Irrationality doesn't have a creed; it just needs a trigger.

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18

scoutt's picture
Submitted by scoutt on

Please give me the context and the response.
Stories of "I've heard (outrageous statement here)" don't wash.
The Obama campaign, his supporters and the media are eager and happy
to jump on this sh*t and even make it up to character assassinate others.
And who are "these people"?
Until you can validate what you're saying, your just throwing more made up stuff into the Obama-as-victim-hero narrative.
Were you worried that HIllary wanted obama assassinated? That's what the talking heads were spinning.
You've bought into this strategy as well. Obama has played one of the nastiest games I've ever seen.
And what about the violence and riots that Obama supporters have threatened? Does that scare you? Doesn't that claim that Obama is entitled to the presidency and there's no way he shouldn't win...even if he doesn't win?!

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

unlike the conversations in the cafeteria.

The response, on my part, was to leave the area immediately.

No, I'm not scared Obama supporters will riot if he loses. Why are you?


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I was trying to listen to the audience, but couldn't make out anything intelligible. I heard a lot of sneers and snickers at the mention of Obama. But I hear similar boos and what not at pretty much every event--Dem or GOP--that I go to. Granted, I could be missing something that you could hear.

I'm not the one who is saying Obama supporters are going to riot if he loses. I've publicly laughed at that idea because I hardly see the keyboard junkies taking to the streets to riot. If you can honestly say that no Obama supporters have made the claim about possible riots, I'll dig some up. But you need to tell me first you have never heard that. If you have, then I'll know you understand that I have never personally made that charge and I bring it up to point to a pattern amongst Obama supporters to imply the worst about people.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

from a forum early in the primaries:


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18

scoutt's picture
Submitted by scoutt on

I don't hear anything outrageous in the clip. No different than the boos and McSame, warmonger chants at Obama campaigns. I actually have heard/seen some shameful and gleeful misogyny at the obama campaigns however.
You don't seem to be able to back up your accusations.
And you actually heard someone in your cafeteria say "hang the N****r"?!!!
No one else at the table said anything and all you did was walk away? Where on earth do you work and why didn't you speak out against it?
You honestly haven't heard threats from obama supporters and even democrats that Obama supporters would riot? Did you see the whole 'recreate 68' group? Donna Brazile? Roland Martin? Farrakhan? James Carville? countless rap artist? And if you did hear the threats, you don't believe them? But you do believe that boos from a republican crowd mean they want to assassinate him?

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

I'm not speaking for Sarah but I have to suck it up and shut up on a daily basis when I hear various issues/candidates misrepresented in an insulting and libelous manner. I'm sure you can understand how a job is more important than vanquishing the idiot in the next cubicle.

I'm not a Palin fanatic but I take great exception when a superior in my office called her a "shrill bitc*" (BTW, I'm a woman). Fortunately I'm in Obama country so most of what I hear is anti-McCain/Palin.

I love this job!

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

http://www.patterico.com/2008/10/14/nobo...

Everyone in the country seems to think someone yelled “Kill him!” at a McCain/Palin rally, about Barack Obama. It’s just not true.

The “Kill him!” phrase was originally reported by the Washingon Post — and it was clearly yelled about William Ayers and not Barack Obama.

I quoted the relevant language in this post:

“And, according to the New York Times, he [referring to Ayers -- P] was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,’” [Palin] continued.

“Boooo!” the crowd repeated.

“Kill him!” proposed one man in the audience.

That is unambiguously a call to kill Ayers, not Obama. As TNR writer Michael Crowley said in a comment to this post of his (h/t L.N. Smithee):

I took “kill him” to mean Ayers–not Obama. It’s just a far, far likelier explanation given the context. That’s still an ugly thing to shout–but on the other hand Ayers probably would have gotten the death penalty had his bombs actually taken a life. If I thought people were actually yelling that about Obama I would feel very differently."

Now, if this is true, how do we feel about the account?

I love this job!

Submitted by lambert on

... the RFK assassination, which is why baselessly propagating the smear that Hillary wanted Obama assassinated is one of the most vile and disgusting acts I can remember in my long awareness of American politics. And, given that baseless charge, it's not surprising that this charge would be baseless, too. After all, why stop doing what works?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by jawbone on

Pat Johnson, on October 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pm Said:

How about this: Before a man is allowed to have “relations” with a woman, he has to sit before a panel of judges and argue his case. Is it a one night stand? A mercy “you know what”? A commitment sort of? A debt owed?

Then he must accept to pledge that should this encounter lead to pregnancy he accepts any and all responsibility for this child in the future and will abide by the wishes of the mother. If having to do this each and every time his libido reaches the threshold does not lead to a complete acceptance of a woman’s right to choose, nothing will.

Equal responsibility is the name of this game.

Now that would so invasive, right? Has he no right to privacy in this area in this life? The guy has to discuss with his family, doctor and clergy whether or not to have sex with some woman? Really awkward if he's married and the woman is not his wife, eh?

Why, that would be just ridiculous!

scoutt's picture
Submitted by scoutt on

but I can't be quiet when I hear the hate and hypocrisy from liberals.
Hell, I'm a lesbian living in San Francisco. My friends think I've gone nuts when I defend Sarah Palin and point out the nasty tactics from the Obama campaign. And honestly, more often than not the response is to shout me down.
They know almost nothing about the underbelly of the Obama campaign nor do they see the misogynistic behavior as a problem...it's justified in their eyes. And yes, I have been called a racist as recently as last evening at my local video store. I'm one of the millions/thousands? who have had their eyelids pulled back about the left. I haven't run to the republican party but I'm no longer a democrat either.

And p.s. I appreciate that it's hard if not impossible to speak out at work. I work for myself so don't have as much to risk. I did walk out of a business pitch 6 months ago when the group at the table began Hillary bashing. It was stupid business wise but I couldn't help it. I didn't want to work with them after hearing that sh*t.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

I don't work (for money) these days ... but the last job came with a parallel-supervisor who was seriously anti-Dem. First person I ever heard use the "socialist" bit about Obama. Kept Rush and similar garbage on his office radio, left where passersby couldn't avoid the aural assault.

Don't kid yourself about the 'business sense' inherent in leaving a toxic environment behind, either. No money in the world is worth having to endure that ... garbage ... every day.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18

Submitted by hipparchia on

we women don't belong to ourselves, we belong to the dudes of the world -- and to the kids, because babies are sacred.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

sums up the McPalin fail on this issue for me perfectly.

The debate continues.

I disagree strongly with the premise so witlessly and breathlessly espoused by Ed Whelan at The Corner (to wit: if Roe were decided a dozen years before it was, Obama wouldn't exist today -- a bit of claptrap horrifying in its casual sexism and racism). No, I'm not linking to him; if you want to read his garbage, you'll have to put out some effort. He's a jerk, and I won't support his jerkitude even indirectly.

There are hints of logic in some Catholic advisors, like law prof Doug Kmiec's column in the LA times on whether a Catholic can vote for a pro-choice candidate (remember when the Church disowned Kerry four years ago?).

There's also Ellen Goodman's provocative op ed in the Boston Globe, suggesting that as GLBT rights have advanced into public view and acceptance, women who have had abortions have gone back into the closet. Visibility, Goodman asserts, is paramount in preserving privacy -- or any other right.

I tend to want to generalize that. I think visibility is important in all our civil rights.

Martin Luther King Junior, Robert F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Baines Johnson made the rights of African Americans visible.

Anita Bryant made the rights of gays and lesbians visible, probably in ways she never meant to.

Similarly, Randall Terry and his supporting cast of thousands have made us all more aware of the obstacles women face -- not just in reproductive health care, which doesn't always mean abortion but often means affordability and accessibility -- but in being able to own and control their own bodies. Our society has a long way yet to go, baby.

So much has been lost, since Reagan busted Patco and proclaimed the 'moral majority' ascendant.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18

Turlock