Politics is a dirty game. It is unacceptable, however, when those with a thorough knowledge of how the game is played, knowingly misrepresent a rival’s position on an important issue to misinform the public. That is what has been going on in the Democratic primaries, and unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is the guilty party.I’m referring of course to the Clinton’s characterization of Barack Obama as falling short of being pro-choice. If you aren’t up on the facts of the matter, I’ll lay them out briefly for you. As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted “present” seven times as part of a broad strategy devised by abortion rights advocates to counter anti-abortion bills. The Clinton camp says that his voting “present” instead of “no” means that he isn’t fully committed to the pro-choice movement. In Illinois, a “present” vote has the same effect as a “no” vote in determining if the bill passes. Should Obama have acted differently? Real leaders of the pro-choice movement don’t think so:
“The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did,” said Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.
The Clinton’s have jumped on this non-issue, trying to portray Obama as not fully committed to a woman’s right to choose. It saddens me that one of our most viable candidates feels they have to resort to misleading and divisive tactics in order to win the party’s nomination. When it comes right down to it, the Clinton campaign is appealing to our least noble instinct by trying to suggest to women that they can’t be adequately represented by a male candidate. She is trying to fuel this fear fire in the heart of the female electorate, hoping that it will trump the voice of reason.If you’ve listened to Barack Obama, then perhaps you share the feeling that I have, that he is a candidate that will rise above race and gender, and inject the voice of reason into a system that dearly lacks it. I feel that I won’t always agree with his decisions, but I know that they will have integrity. I don’t feel that way about Hillary anymore.I truly believe that as it pertains to the choice issue that Obama will always protect our rights and not compromise them for political expedience. That’s not to suggest that Hillary’s likely to waver on choice issues. But there are many other issues that are of serious concern for us. As a woman, I’d rather have a politician that is going to address each issue fairly on its face, than one that might be doing what is expedient for their career . . .

January 29, 2008 at 10:56 am
Thank you, even the most recent divisive representations by the clintons referring to Jesse Jackson as able to get the “black” vote rendering him a black candidate, rather than a candidate that happens to be black, and lending that same metaphor to Obama suggests to me the sort of political tomfoolery you refer to. Additionally the recent Kennedy endorsement has given me more clarity, when choosing is so difficult under the veils of politics.
Leela
LikeLike
January 29, 2008 at 10:58 am
Agreed Leela,Victoria thank for another well thought out position.
Katish
LikeLike
February 10, 2014 at 8:28 am
Since when do you need to be “qualified” to pick a cdiandate ?Since when does a cdiandate need to be “qualified” to be picked ?This kind of talk is gold for authoritarians.The Democracy is not about solving problems, listening to/electing “clever” people.For better or worse, the People should decide. Should, cause it doesn’t anymore.And their stupidity or ignorance has nothing to do with their inalienable right to decide.
LikeLike
January 30, 2008 at 9:15 am
The points are clear, Hillary vs Obama, I am still confused you will protect our rights. Does anyone have an opinion on H vs O on the issue of reproduction, abortion, etc.?
LikeLike
January 30, 2008 at 9:21 am
I am appalled at the Hillary camp and their blows at Obama. This combined with the past bizarre behavior of her tolerance of the endless infidelity and harmful lack of respect of the sanctity of Bill and Hillary’s relationship – and her apparent tacit approval, leaves me bewildered as to the true character of the new Clinton candidate.
Are all these oddities in behavior to be totally dismissed to the outside untouchable realm of private matters and nothing relating to the character of the person in who’s hands we are placing our future? Frankly, and sadly, in some instances they are intimately related I believe.
Think about it.
J
LikeLike
January 30, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I think Obama is very dynamic and inspiring and is doing great things in bringing new voices to the political mainstream. But it feels that he is a little thin skinned about political realities. If he thinks the Clintons are tough and going over his record with a fine toothed comb, wait til the first Swift Boat type ad comes out from the Republicans! When you are running for the most powerful office on Earth (unfortunately), everything you ever did, said, wrote, or thought is up for grabs. So, defend your record and stop whining.
And I can’t believe we are talking about Clinton infidelity again. Don’t we remember how that Puritanism hijacked us in the 90’s?
LikeLike
February 1, 2008 at 11:30 am
Peg,
and some of the other commenter’s.
Appreciate your thoughts. I am concerned about some statements Hillary made regarding abortion being a poor choice, and that adoption is a better alternative, etc., playing into the politics game (part of thread above – yes I partially understand they all have to do this stuff.)
Her statements were in the Washington Post years ago. Sorry I can’t come up with the exact bibliography. Someone out there who knows more about the internet may be able to find it.
Anyway, I don’t doubt her prochoice stance despite these comments. I just do not understand which candidate has a more powerful understanding of the immense importance to women to maintain their status as citizens of absolute equality without absolute & full control over their bodies.
I don’t know where you stand on the issue. From my perspective this is the single most important issue of liberty facing our nation at this juncture to maintain and reach the standard of equality which has been such a long road.
Obama’s willingness to work with the prochoice community (and many other editorials I have read about his position), even when it may have caused him harm, appears to be part of a strong understanding of these important issues. It is almost as if having been a minority (that is, he is old enough to have remembered some of the big issues first hand) has opened a door for his thought development on this topic.
As well having Kenyan ancestry and understanding the complexity on a global basis has propelled his thinking to even the issues of female circumcision and the global issues of women’s rights (as the problem in America is just a tiny fraction of the world’s problems – I don’t recall hearing Hillary talk about any initiatives (I could be wrong) globally.
I know my comment is a little all over the place, I would like to know, if anyone has authoritative data on which one of these next president’s has the best prochoice position, proven and/or inferred from their behavior . . .
Thank you,
Hilda
LikeLike
February 1, 2008 at 3:54 pm
That would be nice, which candidate supports choice from a better position, does anyone know?
M
LikeLike
December 25, 2009 at 12:10 am
Hello there,
My name is Jack Steele. I am the informant who helped police solve the James Kopp case.
I provided the tip that led to the arrest and conviction of James Kopp, who shot three Canadian doctors before shooting and killing an American doctor. Kopp is an anti-abortion fanatic who targeted the doctors because they were performing abortions.
I hope you’ll publicize my website. The actions of the Canadian police are bound to have a chilling effect on other tipsters in criminal cases, and sends a horrible message to other people who would do harm to abortion providers in Canada and the US.
–Jack Steele
LikeLike
January 17, 2010 at 9:50 pm
MANY PEOPLE THINK ABORTION IS PRETTY MUCH OK, and most really believe that it is only legal for the first few months. Ask a person on the street to describe PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, and they will just stare at you – and once you explain it to them, they insist that you are making it up, and they become angry with you for telling them something so gross. TRY IT!
SO WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT KILLING THE UNBORN?
EXODUS 21 THE BIBLE – KING JAMES version s says: 22. If men (men or women, not gender specific) strive (conspire, take an action) , and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [early, before its time, or with problems], and yet no mischief (permanent damage) follow: he (they) shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he (they) shall pay as the judges determine. 23And if any mischief (permanent damage for child or mother) follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 An Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” (pretty much describes abortion techniques)_ Basically, whatever is done to the unborn child will surely be done to those responsible for the damage – any damage, any time, anywhere. God himself will have the revenge, folks – and may God have mercy upon their souls.
LikeLike