The kind that look like Tootsie Rolls

I MEAN WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR PEOPLE TO WAKE UP????

No! Try not. Do or do not. There is no try!

I got my laugh, I'm out!!

Politicians need to give up gynecology as a hobby. Another woman's reproductive life is none of her business.

I'm not sure how she has support at all.

The rich and well off can always travel for abortions, as they did before it was legal. The poor, no. Now there are more and more poor.

The rich can always bypass any repercussions of the culture wars. Where Democrats and Republicans seem to be operating on the same page these days is trade agreements that undermine middle class jobs, tax breaks for super rich people, and give-aways to interests like the insurance industry.

It ought to be seen that it would be a strange universe whose dimensions are not on axes of real measurement but nonetheless reliably place the solution to every problem in the moderate middle. It is always expected to be found under an umbrella within one standard deviation from the mean, median and mode of a symmetrical bell-shape curve of popular sentiment.

That middle place is where we as young naive Goldilocks are all taught that all the solutions exist. It makes us suckers for those who wish to exploit us and herd us with words like "moderate" and "centrist". The answer is -never- expected, and thereby is never given the possibility, to be "immoderate" or "off-center". When we are in doubt about what to purchase, what to vote for or how much effort to give, we look for the option in the middle, the one with medium value that comes in at avg cost.

In it's political theology the third-way is a philosophy that sends it's disciples in search of that place of compromise. And we're not talking difficult leaps but just little bits of compromise that yeild a bit more popular support. Yes, it may be movement that requires becoming a bit more like the opponent, but we are talking tiny bits, which in this strange universe will somehow never contribute to tectonic movement that could be recognized as politically continental drift.

In the strange universe of dimensionless politics, Xeno's paradox is not at all paradoxical, there is always a place just half the distance between where we and our opponents stand where a pot of gold can be found under the over-arching canopy that is the monochromatic rainbow of the pragmatist's 'normal' curve. All hopes, dreams, strategies and tactics subsume to triangulate on that mythic place of common goodness. As Rahm tells us we have to be retarded if we think there is any other place to go.

Which leaves many of us wondering about why and how it can be that both major US parties never seem to get to a solution that provides for the common good, but inevitably provides ever greater fractions of the valuable to the 1%.

If that moderate centrist landscape is so good, isn't it quite odd that the immoderate wings of both dominant American political parties are on the rise?

Doesn't that plainly suggest that the reality to be found in the center of the mountain range of the summits of a seeming endless chain of polled frequency distributions and drill tests of focus groups is that there is no Big Rock Candy Mountain with a Lost Dutchman's Mine of compromised goodness?

according to gallop, only 29% of americans believe in no restrictions on abortion. 51% believe that it should only be allowed in some circumstances, and 19% believe it should always be illegal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

so basically, 70% of americans believe that some restrictions on abortions are appropriate. hillary is, as always, trying to read the temperature of the public and adjust her "position" accordingly.

no surprise at all.

She is losing ground to those on the left, so she is pandering to the right.

and probably almost zero shot at getting centrists.

so honestly, i don't know what the hell she is thinking.....

she could tell me my own name and I wouldn't believe her. I believe my bitterness towards her started during the 2008 primaries. Before that, didn't have much of a problem with her.

"I should be president." On that, she has never wavered.

Just curious.

I would appear that Hillary's supporters smoothed over another line in the sand. This time on choice. What will be the next one?

higher and thicker than Trump's.

If the data sez that works politically.

Roe v Wade only allows abortion on any ground up to the point of viability, and allows states to regulate abortion after that as they see fit. The point of viability is often seen as 24 weeks, but some states interpret it to mean 24 weeks for a healthy pregnancy, and never for an unhealthy one (i.e., where the fetus is never viable).

In many progressive European states abortion on demand is only allowed up to 12 weeks; abortion for medical reasons up to 24 weeks; and I assume there are exception for life of the mother after that.

Hillary's stance sounds pretty much on line with Roe v Wade, and is more liberal than that of many European countries. I don't see the drama here.

Her comments are directly in relation to the late term (post Roe) scenario.

And it's between her and her doctor, NOT know-nothing legislators.

But the point is that Hillary is not betraying the principles set down in Roe v Wade. This whole thread is manufactured outrage.

Not trying to be disrespectful at all, just trying to see where you stand.

I see her willing to making a tradeoff on a woman's right to choose. The willingness to make a tradeoff is crystal clear - what the rights of others that she is willing to give up is not at all clear, nor will it be until after she makes her back-room deal with her conservative buds.

By accepting the idea that it should be regulated further, she accepts the RW claim that women are willing to have an abortion at 24 weeks on a whim.

--that restricts abortion in any way.

Can't wait to read how Clinton and her supporters will spin this.

I dread seeing it. My liver can't take the insanity.

Give in to 95% of their demands and then claim she did great getting half of the 5% she didn't give away to start with.

A: She moves her lips.

Pretty clear Bernie**** will go to any "links"

I'm certain it can be found elsewhere.

I only watched the video there, I didn't read the story because it is, as you say, RCP... and yes, the subject is late term abortions, not all abortions... but it's clear that Hillary is open to BANNING abortions with her stated exceptions.

I am of the opinion that this should always be a decision between a woman and her doctor. It is my belief that nearly all women would NOT choose to have a late term abortion as a means of birth control, especially if we, as a society, made abortion and contraception safe, acceptable, accessible, and affordable.

She has and will sell anyone out. Not a core belief in her head.

No Hillary. No How. No Way!!!!!

There is. It's call Row v Wade.
The 'restrictions' she is talking about are already there.
So where is she going with this?

Hillary Clinton is a conservative, period. She is not a right-winger, or a religious fanatic, or any of the other full-on crazy things that American conservatives have glommed onto of late, but she is, as she has said herself,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

What she is telling us is that, when she thinks about it, conservatives are right, but that she concedes that philosophy can be softened here and there for the sake of sentiment.

That is wrong. Conservatives are not right, not in general, not on most things. Not, especially, in the area of women's reproductive rights and abortion. She believes abortion is "sad," and "tragic," just as the worst conservatives wrongly contend. It is in her favor that that she is less willing to limit women's rights in this area, but her "mind," is conservative and wrong.


http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/08/hillary-clinton-isnt-particularly-good-for-feminism/

Her mind is likewise conservative on war and the Middle East, taking cues from Kissinger, the failed architect of American interventionism quite rightly considered criminal by many. He told her Iraq needed to be "humiliated," so here we are -- thousands of American and millions of Iraqi lives shattered, a trillion or so spent, and -- surprise -- more instability and violence in the region than ever.

Her mind is conservative as to Wall Street and financial reform. Those speech transcripts, when they inevitably do come out, probably won't show anything we don't already know, but they will almost certainly confirm the kind of "mind conservative" thinking she had going as to the mortgage crisis as it was starting to emerge in 2007:


http://usuncut.com/politics/video-surfaces-of-hillary-clinton-blaming-homeowners-for-financial-crisis/

Hillary can be a conservative all she wants. It is one point of view. But sanding off the rough edges of today's extremist Republicans does not make her "progressive."

And it does not make her right.

has changed from "Ike" to raving lunatics and conspiracy nuts from the John Birch society.

They have dragged our country so far right that Hillary (as you say a mild conservative) is viewed as a left leaning Democrat... and a progressive is viewed as being very close to Stalinist communist.

I don't know that she'd disagree with Reagan on that much. Both attacked Libya. Both have favored de-regulation. Both seem to feel wealthy business interests are wise enough to govern themselves.

But since Reagan, Republicans have plunged wildly into the darkness. They have breakfast with religious extremists who oppose gay rights. They are openly advocating a complete ban on abortion. They gabble about "small government" while spending all of our collected wealth building up oil companies and finding new wars to start. They claim that science is a lie and that schools and prisons are best run for profit. They demagogue about immigrants and Islam while working to make sure every square inch of the country except their own chambers is full of people carrying guns.

Hillary Clinton supports none of those deranged things as far as I can see. She is what an American conservative would be before they all went crackers and got to the point where they are presently deciding between a reality show host talking about bullets dipped in pig's blood and a religious conman obsessed with the Apocalypse as their next candidate for President.

It would speak much better for the entire country if Republicans were fielding someone like Hillary Clinton to face off against someone like Bernie Sanders for the Democrats.

did you ever figure out how to get the sofa out of the stairwell?

"fundamental interconnectedness of all things."

enjoy a pangalactic gargle blaster on the house.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Not liberal enough for Puritopians of course but hardly a conservative. More in step with the majority electorate in the US. Another reason she will win.

That is the point here. Just because the Republicans dove off the cliff to the point where they are deciding between a guy screaming about dipping bullets in pig's blood and a religious nut eagerly awaiting the End Times does not mean that anything short of that is somehow liberal or progressive.

Hillary Clinton is a conservative. She is not a crazy religious fanatic, a crypto-racist, or a shrieking demagogue, but that's probably not good enough for a lot of people.

And given most Democrats are looking for someone more, not less liberal than Obama to be their next President, I don't know that being the equivalent of a 1980s Republican is "in step" with them.

contingent of the party.

"Bait and switch" Hillary.

It's just like Mitt Romney's etch-a-sketch thing. It's how they roll.

What the hell?

She is untrustworthy...her only core value is greed for power and money... Everything else may 'evolve'.

How's that going?

Compromise?
It sounds as if Hillary Clinton’s definition of the word is very much the same one Harry Reid applied when he was the Majority Leader in the Senate and Republicans threatened to filibuster. They seem oblivious to the fact that surrendering the high ground before the first shot is fired does not qualify as compromise!
And who does she plan to compromise with – or more to the point, who does she think is going to compromise with her?
Equally significant is the question of whether she has ever read Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.
Does she believe Blackmun’s verdict encourages compromise?
While we’re at it, has she ever contemplated an abortion?
Does she know anyone who has?
Would she or anyone she knows be willing to compromise their freedom of choice in such a matter?

Cognitive dissonance much?

She was referring to LATE TERM ABORTION.

Of course the bashing will continue unabated.

Carry on........

Am I reading this right? Is she really saying she'd be open to amending the constitution, enshrineing this stricture into the documents of the constitution? This is NOT a bargaining chip for her to pander with - she starts with this and she'll edge down the path to more restrictions on women's right to choose.

Bullshit! This is a call to keep her out of the WH even more - republican-lite, pander bear, anything to win, selling women out for power, ...!


Over my dead body!

We can look forward to many such compromises if your Candidate, Hillary, is elected.

we be attacked as against these lions of activism--point out they're not following their own recommendation numbers and get automatically painted as "anti-choice." nice trick, if you can pull it off

the greens didn't hesitate with the LCV over its endorsement, so that sector didn't work