How the game is played, unfortunately some DUers fall for it RE: Hillary

See the headline and first paragraph from today's NY POST

"PRO-CHOICE HILLARY BACKS BILL TO REDUCE ABORTIONS"

By FREDRIC U. DICKER

ALBANY — Pro-choice Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton sought "common ground" again on the hot-button abortion issue yesterday, joining pro-life Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, to back a measure she said would reduce abortions.
-snip-

I'm sure if I were to post this headline and first paragraph in LBN there would be a number of DUers who would just react to that calling her a DINO, sell out, DLC whore, et al. and just ignore the following two paragraphs"

-snip-
"We can find not only common ground, but common sense in the 'Prevention First' amendment we are offering today," said Mrs. Clinton, touting a $100 million plan to expand access to contraception devices and birth-control information.

Clinton raised eyebrows in pro-choice circles — and stimulated further talk of potential presidential ambitions for 2008 — in January with an Albany speech in which she called abortions a "sad, even tragic" choice for women and urged the pursuit of common ground with abortion foes.
-snip-

Please tell me what is wrong with Hillary's position? Is $100 million for contraception a sell out? Of course some will look for any reason to criticize her.

http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/41238.htm

There is nothing wrong with the 'prevention first' approach. Hillary Clinton was attacked here for her earlier comments, which appeared to be a right-shift, part of her campaign strategy, and part of the endless DLC drive-to-the-right that has led the Democratic Party to election loss after loss after loss.

So in summary: providing access to birth control devices and information is a good idea, Mrs. Clinton remains a DLC whore.

I will not get over someone who calls themselves a Dem but supports faith based initiatives. This is nothing more than a scheme to relieve the government of its obligation to the Nation, a gutting of the New Deal, & illegal campaign funding, oh, and don't forget PANDERING!!!

Stand for Democratic values or get out of my face!! If you don't have the integrity nor the courage to stand on the values of the Democratic Party, you will not receive my vote.

on edit: my typing sucks

if contraception and sex education could be taught without the knee jerk reaction right wingers seem to have toward it, there would be less unwanted pregnancies and hence less abortions. I don't see why they freak so easily. I think it's a better idea to promote contraception, safe sex, and sex education if you want to reduce the number of abortions. Plain and simple.

as family planning funds have been dramatically cut by the Bush budget.
Family Planning includes contraception (birth control pill) which many times are NOT funded by insurance companies. She pointed out that Viagra IS included but BC in NOT.
Family planning also includes use of condons (sex education).

Naturallly the Repugs were upset and they think ALL funding should go to abstantance education. (JUST SAY NO mentality).

She is trying the preventive approach to unwanted pregnancie. Nothing at all wrong with this approach in my book.

I think it could help close the great divide on the issue.

Kerry again.

with her teaming up with Reed. Actually I think it advances her politically.

For many years the Pro-choice movement has seen as its center the right to abortion. In Sen. Clinton's reframing the center becomes an unwanted pregnancy.

This approach gives energy to sex-education and pregnancy prevention programs that the conservatives also have had under assault.

This approach also raises anxiety that the reframing is setting up a shift in committment and available support for abortion rights. As anyone who has scrolled through recent DU postings on this will quickly realize, that anxiety is huge.

The reframing that Clinton has undertaken might have been better recieved if it hadn't come from her. Unfortunately, her position is percieved, rightly or wrongly, as one not so much into accomplishment by compromise but consistently going along with issues supported by the conservative side of the party.

sentence.

Supporting bushies war. She has ZERO credibility.

From now on I'm going to vote for Republicans. Hell I'm going to start sending them money.

Thanks for turning me around.

no shit ... in a R. Lee Ermey voice to Joker.

:D

boring and doesn't properly reflect reality. Instead, it allows the director's eye for light and shadow to editorialize reality.

:smoke:

to put up or shut up.

However, I still don't see her winning a national election: she won't flip any red states, for sure, and she might possibly even flip some blue states to red. That's just the simple fact of what 12 years of negative media will do.

Put up or shut up, that is the key strategy here. What she is saying is "OK, Bill Frist, DR. BILL FRIST that is, how about prevention?" This shifts the debate and puts the burden on the righties to come up with an argument against prevention of unplanned pregnancies. I think it is brilliant. Most people in this country are in favor of contraception as both a privacy and a medical issue, in favor of a level field when it comes to the Viagra/birth control pill insurance coverage issue, and Emergency Contraception when regular birth control fails.

AS we used to say when I worked for Planned Parenthood, "We do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than any other organization in this country."

The antichoicers in Congress do squat.

will prevent abortions. The Dems have a lot of convincing to do and I see this a start.

Pretty soon people will be saying, "Hey, the Dems are correct. What's the matter with prevention." Then the game is up for the righties. Except for their band of extremists, they depend on the sheeple not to know what is going on. The extremists don't want people to have birth control, pure and. simple. Well, here we've called that bluff.

Somehow I doubt we'll hear anything out of the mouths of Hannity, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh on this.

The Repukes want to also limit access to contraception and information which is RADICAL. She has effectively used "their" language to encourage MORE funding for contraception and ed. That's great. However, I still don't want her as the Dem nominee. I like the gov from Montana.

for the dem nomination. The country isn't ready for a women Prez and I just can't believe the dems would try it. Although the repugs are trying to set us up by talking about her 24/7.

Whether morality in the media or abortion, Dem's are making a statment about why they think they lost the election in November.

and this was part of the Democrat Platform during the campaign. The problem is not what the bill said, but the way Hillary said it. She insists too much on abstinence and adoption and not enough in planning, contraception access, and economical measures, reinforcing the idea that abortion is not only tragic, but bad.

not what she says (or what you think she said). And did you notice that the righties went after her on what she said? I am just not that unhappy with what she said because she followed through with an commonsense approach that is hard for normal people to argue with and puts the righties on the defensive. That is good.

this bill. That was not my point.

I still dont think it is OK to bring adoption in a prevention bill, this is not prevention.

is not the same as forcing women to bring a pregnancy to term in order to let other adopt the baby.

A few years ago a researcher at Claremont College in California, Jean Schroedel, did an empirical study to test her (then)thesis that states that had more antichoice statutes had stronger laws protecting women and children and programs to help poor women, abused women, and children. Her thesis happily was blown apart by what she found. The more prochoice the state, the stronger the protection of women and children. I bring this up because one of the points she brought out in her study was the question of adoption of children with special needs. The prochoice states offered subsidies to people wishing to adopt these children. The antichoice states did not. Prof. Schroedel said she became a member of NARAL as a result of her work.

Let's not be cast as devils who are against adoption.

and give a signal that abortion is morally wrong and that adoption is a preferable solution.

They can do a separate bill concerning adoption if they want to promote adoption, because there are kids to adopt for other reasons than an unwanted pregnancy. Let not get the issue confused with reducing unwanted pregnancies, please.

I would rather want them promote economical measures to help mothers who would want to keep their babies and dont think they can (such as health care and financial help for babysitting).

Once again, I am totally for the bill and would be for an adoption bill. I just dont want to see the reduction of unwanted pregnancies and the adoption questions mixed together because there is an implicit moral judgement when somebody does that.

forcing women to complete a pregnancy by offering adoption is the "pro-life" stance and is in complete sinc with the far right Christian stance.

Let women have access to birth control, birth control education from the get go, access to the morning after pill and the abortion rate will go down. Make Christian owned and Catholic owned hospitals remove it from their statement of purpose to not participate in providing women assisstance when it comes to women's health, change that if they receive any government money at all.

Many seem to be relying upon the numbers of abortion as the waterline with which to judge the moral actions of women. We have seen not other studies, or follow up studies re that. Has access to birth control pills been responsible, for instance? Or have women improved their morality?(sarcasm) as those numbers would imply.

In a few years, I think, studies will come out about the lack of applications to adopt, resulting in an overflowing of unwanted children being placed in state sponsored homes. The notion that people are going to flock to adopt these unwanted children is too romantic, imo, especially when the state of the econmy, by all indicators, continues to decline.

A thirty five year old women who already has four children and does NOT want another, for whatever her own reasons,and does NOT want to spend nine months in another pregnancy, should not be shamed into choosing the alternative of "adoption" by right winged ideologists.

is a strategy to turn a blue state red? Huh?

I really don't see any problem with this - prevention is good. Let the pukes vote against wanting to reduce ignorance...it's a win/win

1) If the public hears it and..

2) If the public understands that under Pres. Clinton abortion was down, and under Bush abortions are on the rise.

I wish I could say I was just kidding around, but the complete lack of interest shown by the general public, as well as the utter disdain for the truth and evidence by the right wing, is just sickening.

louder.

And that's the issue. She's giving ground.

Anyone who can't admit abortions are sad and tragic is not helping their own cause.

It's always been better to educate people on birth control and to make birth control available. No one is for abortion and abortion should not be a primary form of birth control.

Rather than arguing about whether this is a step away from pro choice, Democrats should take a gift when given one. The extreme Republican position is:

*******
The Republicans are not only anti-choice, they don't want people to have access to birth control.
*******

In the last election, Bush simply mumbled something about the sanctity of life. Kerry had an extremely difficult task. His discourse covered separation of church and state, making alternatives to abortion more available, education. Although everything he said was reasonable, for pro-life people it boiled down to supporting abortion. (The other side affect was that it called into question Kerry's religious and moral believes, in spite of the fact that he has regularly attended church all his life.)

With this vote, Hillary or any Democratic candidate (even Kerry) could avoid the quagmire by saying that legal and save abortions should be available and through education and making birth control available the number of abortions could be limited. Then ask opponent their opinion on birth control. Someone, I think Kerry, recently in response to the question also queried the interviewer on what should the penalties of having an abortion be if it were illegal. Both of these responses might put the Democrats into a less defensive position.

It's coming from Murdoch's NY Post, so it's going to be slanted (if not distorted entirely) to the right.

Had this story come from a more neutral source, though, I don't know that I wouldn't be one of the ones initially jumping the gun, and in that I agree with your point.