Inside My Velvet Rope

Obama's record shows a rather questionable stance on Roe v. Wade, even beyond what was in the article. There's that whole thing about a woman having to speak with her minister (so he thinks women aren't enough thinking human beings to make their own choices) his admiration of Roberts and desire to nominate justices like him, with the dismissal of Roe v. Wade (and other woman's issues) as "mere ideology", and his troubling answer on a candidate survey in 1996 that he was "undecided" on Roe v. Wade and his stance on choice was neither rigidly antichoice, or any spectrum of prochoice, but "other".

Obama is far too Republican on many issues important to me. I see McCain as no worse on those issues. No way am I voting for either, though. I'm voting Green.

From:

aamusedinatx.livejournal.com

Through her 8 year career as first lady, Hillary Clinton stated she was for Abortion to protect the life of the Mother or in cases of rape and incest. That is not pro choice.

On the other hand, NARLA has endorsed Obama whole heartedly.

Yes he voted Present on anti-choice legislation and he has a history of doing so. I agree. Before I condemn him for that I want to read the actual text of those laws that came up for vote and what was tacked onto them. That makes a huge difference to me. Not a single law presented to Congress and passed through to become law ever remains in it's original state or to it's single purpose. Many times the yes votes and the no votes, as well as the PASS votes have to do with the crap and special interest issues that get tacked on.

I cannot vote for McCain especially because of his pro-life views. I could vote for Hillary, even though she espoused a compromise view that clearly lacked gumption but was designed not to alienate her husband's conservative southern supporters. On this issue alone, O'bama is the candidate clearly a better choice. BUT this is only one of many, many issues.

From:

Some interesting articles on voting "present":

http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-obama-should-vote-no-on-abortion-issue/69700/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html

Apparently, the "present" votes on some of the abortion bills were part of a strategy by Planned Parenthood of Illinois (seems kind of sketchy):

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html

McCain has always been anti-abortion, although his position on Roe v. Wade has shifted (he now supports repealing it, though in the past, he hasn't). He's voted time and again to restrict abortion, to ban public funding for abortion or to organizations that advocate or perform abortions and against non-abstinence-only sex education.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18632802

http://www.ontheissues.org/john_mccain.htm

Regardless of my feelings about Obama, I don't feel like I could trust McCain to protect reproductive rights and education. It just seems like a huge leap of faith to gamble that he doesn't really mean what he says.

From:

Did he say that women must speak with their ministers or that the decision should be made in conjunction with doctors, clergy, etc.? My impression was always that this was always code for "women should be allowed to make these decisions privately, in conjunction with the guidance they may seek, themselves, as opposed to these decisions being made by the government." I'd like to know if I've got that wrong. While I'd rather do without the rhetoric of how everyone must agonize over the choice of whether or not to have an abortion (because sometimes, it's just very clear) and without this idea that women need to seek guidance from authorities (as many know what's best for them without having to discuss it with anyone else), it doesn't seem to me that this is the same as not protecting abortion rights.

1996 was twelve years ago. Do you have any evidence that he's been holding these views more recently? I'm troubled by his "present" votes, despite Planned Parenthood's explanation that it was part of their strategy in Illinois....but I know he's taken some pretty strongly pro-choice positions on votes in recent years. I know he's been Republican on some other issues, but how has he been Republic on abortion lately?

From:

Obama is not a choice for me, because I do not believe he is experienced enough to effectively run this country. With that in mind, McCain may be tolerable enough for me to vote for, and this article is one I can use as I am weighing my options over the coming months.

From:

The point is, I may be able to tolerate him for 4 years, even if he is not pro-choice. Since Obama is not an option for me and voting third party may not send the message to the Democratic party that I wish to send, I might be able to hold my nose and vote for McCain. Might. I haven't made up my mind. This article is one of the tools I can use as I make up my mind in the months ahead.

Edited Date: 2008-06-10 07:22 pm (UTC)

From:

aamusedinatx.livejournal.com

Experience is a serious issue. I agree. My brother in law is an American History professor. He and I had a conversation about experience in presidential races vs. congressional races. Historically America votes in newness and change for President: think Clinton, Eisenhower, Carter, Kennedy, Lincoln, and even our current president, Bush. Historically we take that 'new' blood risk with the Oval office.

However, we overwhelmingly vote in favor of experience when seating people in congress. Think Jessie Helms, Ted Kennedy, Ted Stevens, John D. Rockefeller, and Strom Thurmond. Even now with term limits enforced, we vote that way. I know *I* often vote that way when looking at my representatives in congress.

I had not looked at the race for the White House or Capital Hill in that way before Tim and I had that talk. It was an interesting framework through which to look at this race as well.

From:

I don't recall Clinton's position while First Lady (when she had no responsibility as an elected official) and that never mattered to me. Her record since joining the Senate is very clearly pro-choice:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

(Not that it matters, since she's conceded, but still.)

From:

I just don't trust that he wouldn't set us back, short-term or long-term (depending on the circumstances, given the opportunities). But I guess that's something that we each need to evaluate for ourselves.

I'll be curious to see where all of this takes you and what you decide. It seems like it's really sparked something for you.

From:

I don't know about the other presidents you listed, but I wouldn't consider Presidents Clinton or Bush to have been "new blood" any more than I would consider Senators McCain or Clinton to be "new blood". They had experience running states, which counts as experience. My problem with Obama is that he went from a relatively unknown state politician to a Senator on Capitol Hill, then didn't even finish out that term on Capitol Hill before he decided to try to run the entire country. That's skipping a lot of intermediate, necessary steps and doesn't give me any indication he has any idea what he's in for, if he was elected. Granted, I don't think anyone can know through and through what they are getting into--in that regard, Senator Clinton would have been better prepared than any, having been involved in President Clinton's terms--but Presidents Clinton and Bush would have had a far better idea than a junior senator would have, because of their governorships.

From:

It matters for those of us who intend to write her in, if election laws in our states allow it.

From:

I feel the same about Obama. There are far too many unknowns with him, and that is just as dangerous, if not more so, than knowing a person's views are opposite mine.

Right now my preferences are, from most favored to least:

1. Write in Senator Clinton. (This will depend on whether she receives the nomination at the convention. By the way, she suspended her campaign, which allows her to hang onto her delegates and possibly take the fight for the nomination to the convention. Had she conceded, her delegates would have been released to Obama.)

2. Vote third party, possibly for Cynthia McKinney (Green Party) (http://www.runcynthiarun.org/). I need to learn more about her, though.

3. Vote McCain.

Notice that NOT voting is not an option, either. :-)

Whether I vote for McCain will also depend on whether I want to send a stronger message to the Democratic party about how I feel about their mishandling of the delegates and the sexism. That is why I am looking closely at him; if I end up voting for him, I want to know what I am getting into. But if I find I cannot stomach him, I won't vote for him, no matter how I feel about my former party.

Whether I post about my decision will depend on whether I feel like dealing with flack from people for my choice. Lord knows the things I've read in pro-Obama blogs here on LJ have not made me feel inclined to share my decision. I don't need to be beaten up for exercising my right to vote my conscience.

From:

You are distorting Hillary stance on choice- she recieved 100% ratings from all prochoice groups, and I wouldn't go around touting that endorsement- it was done againist the charter and for mere political expidence, many local chapters were outraged because 1) the violation of the charter and 2) Hillary was and is the one who has fought for years to defend FULL abortion rights. Obama has done NOTHING to support that, and his willingness to go antichoice should be what you should be paying attention to. Hillary supports abortion rights in all aspects, she argued strongly against the so called partial birth arbortion ban, and voted against it too. Obama got his endorsement by doing nothing, and nothing is all he'll ever do for any women's issues.

Edited Date: 2008-06-10 08:52 pm (UTC)

From:

placate-me.livejournal.com

States like Ohio would really be in danger with another Republican in office for 4 years. Here in NY, an abortion is easily obtainable, but it is not the case in some areas.

I've been reading your journal, and understand that you are grieving for your candidate. I was a Hilary Clinton supporter as well.

Could you give me a little background on your opinion of Obama as a sexist? I haven't gotten that impression, but maybe I'm missing something. Could you link me to the info? Thanks!

From:

My main focus has been on Obama's lack of experience. It has only been since Senator Clinton suspended her campaign that I've become aware of Senator Obama's sexist comments. However, I have been aware all along that Senator Clinton was held to a different standard throughout the primaries, and the media was far harsher on her than they have ever been on any male candidate. Meanwhile, the Democratic party said nothing, where I suspect they would have been up in arms, had similarly racist comments been made about Obama by the media. Gloria Steinem's comments on CNN reflect my feelings on the sexism displayed during the campaign season. (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/06/09/intv.steinem.clinton.obama.cnn)

From:

I understand. Even though I'll be voting for Obama because I feel clear that he'd represent my interests better than McCain would (even though I still have concerns about his inexperience), he was far from my first choice (as you know) and I've been very turned off by his supporters.

I have reservations about McKinney's temperament and her ability to lead effectively (and questions about her association with the New Black Panther Party; I need to read more about that)....but I appreciate how she's spoken up sometimes when others haven't about some important issues.

From:

caravel.livejournal.com

You'll probably send a stronger message to the Democrats voting Green than voting Republican.

If you're voting in New York (and I'm fairly sure you are), you have to figure that the state's probably going to Obama. Knowing that, it seems more likely that the DNC would see a Green vote as a protest than a Republican vote.

From:

That's what I would think, too. However, Obama is more likely to lose, if disenfranchised Democrats and former Democrats join our votes with current Republicans than if we vote for a third party. One Green vote in a state that will probably go to Obama for party alone won't even be seen, except by the person on the board of elections who canvasses the votes in that machine at the end of the day. The only report in the news will be that Obama won New York. However, if a significant number of Hillary supporters threw their votes to McCain, that would make state and national news all over the place.

That said, I don't intend to vote McCain out of spite. I would have to honestly believe he is the best choice for me out of the other candidates. That's why I am paying attention to his campaign, now.

From:

You might want to look at this. I gives yet another weight to Obama actually being antichoice:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/10/213940/648

From:

My choices are 1 and 2 on your list, but I'm gradually coming to choosing 2 more than 1 so my vote counts. I also would like to do something for McKinney, because she is another feminist Democrat who got messed over by the DNC. I loathe the DNC with a fiery passion now. They have stolen the party from us and are trying to make it over as a Republican lite party.

From: