WHY I'M NOT WRITING THAT CHECK TO OBAMA TODAY
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 at 03:15PM Explanatory note: While the debate continues over at my previous post about Obama for Women, and I still wouldn't vote for McCain under any circumstance, I've had to take a step back as I realized just how seriously damaging Obama's comments about abortion and sex education could be. This situation is all the more reason he must give the sexism speech as I have suggested. He needs to do more than merely "clarify" his position on these issues; he needs to take a much bigger look at his own thinking about women's rights and rightful place in the world. Here goes:
I was planning to attend Barack Obama’s big fundraising reception in New York Wednesday night and make the maximum contribution to his campaign, but I have torn up the invitation.
My decision isn’t about the money, though the thought of writing a check for $4600 takes my breath away. It seemed that important to do my part to prevent the 100% anti-choice John McCain’s election and a de facto third Bush term.
I supported Hillary Clinton in the primary because I believe she’s the most capable of meeting the enormous challenges the next president will face undoing the damage to women’s rights, health, and justice caused by Bush. Still, I’ve admired Obama since I met him at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Later, in Washington after he was elected to the Senate, I sensed he was genuine in his commitment to women’s equality. So, despite my still-raw feelings about Hillary’s concession, I was prepared to go forward this week and commit full support to Obama.
Then the danger signals started.
Now, I’ve spent enough years on the political frontline to know that before getting that post-inauguration chance to do cleanup work, let alone start on new initiatives, any Democratic candidate must first navigate the political crucible that immediately engulfs him or her upon becoming the party’s nominee. And it doesn’t surprise me that Obama would seek to broaden his base by meeting with groups such as evangelicals and conservatives who are unlikely suspects to become Obama voters in large numbers. But I am shocked at the magnitude of what Marie Cocco has properly dubbed Obama’s “pander tour”.
During the last two weeks, the thunderclouds of doubt have gathered ever more ominously until they cast Obama’s character into serious question. First there was a distant rumbling in his sudden support for FISA, followed by his support for the Supreme Court’s ruling expanding the right to handguns. His statements about religion in public life and intentions to expand faith based funding programs were nervous making, though he did temper his comments with talk of Constitutional protections for church-state separation.
By the time he spoke to an evangelical group, sounding for all the world like he was withdrawing his long held opposition to the Federal abortion ban by running, not walking, down the slippery path of parsing what reasons for abortion the law may deem acceptable or not—infantilizing woman and devaluing their moral capacity and human right to exercise it—I was seriously questioning whether this man would have the necessary mettle to withstand any challenges at all. Or worse, is he just another politician swaying with the winds and running for cover at the hint of a little thunder?
He’d obviously allowed the anti-choice misstatement of the abortion ban’s provisions to frame his answer, when any lawyer ought to know that buying into your adversary’s argument is guaranteed to doom your own. He replied to their questions as though the abortion ban law concerns only abortions late in pregnancy when in truth it states no time or gestation factor and could seriously limit access to abortions much earlier in pregnancy. Equally disturbing, his words override the principle of medical judgment in what constitutes risk to the woman, as transcribed in Relevant Magazine:
Strang: …there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?But the last straw was his comments on sex education, when he gratuitously offered up language coded to out-triangulate any triangulating he had ever accused Hillary of doing:
Obama: I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions…
Strang: You’ve said you’re personally against abortion and would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions under your administration. So, as president, how would do you propose accomplishing that?
Obama: I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important—emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that’s something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think [is] the proper role of government.
So just about the time state after state has recognized the damage done by abstinence programs and withdrawn from federal funding for them, we’re going to have a president committed to abstinence education? I don’t think so. And this coming from a man who in the Senate is a sponsor of the Prevention First Act and the Freedom of Choice Act? I certainly hope not.
In the big picture, Obama’s character begins to appear as someone who is quick to deflect, demur, defer to his challengers. The dreaded flip-flopper, whom voters always see as a loser. When the frame is focused on reproductive rights and health specifically, we see a candidate who is either uninformed (not likely) or speaks with an unacceptable lack of moral center about abortion, sex education, and family planning.
I truly hope Obama will have sense enough to come in out of the rain of his self-induced controversy and recognize that he’s a lot more likely to persuade women like me to support him than he is to get the votes of those who press for him to betray his previously stated pro-woman principles and will almost certainly abandon him at the ballot box anyway.
For now, he has a long way to go to convince me my $4600 would be a good investment.
Barack Obama, FISA, Federal funding for abstinence education, Freedom of Choice Act, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Marie Cocco, McCain, Prevention First Act, Pro-Choice, abortion, abstinence only, democrats, evangelicals, leadership, politics, president's agenda, presidential elections, religious conservatives, reproductive justice, sex education, women
Reader Comments (22)
One thing that I find hopeful in all of this is I think Obama is starting to feel the heat of the netroots from both former Hillary supporters and more importantly, progressives who supported Obama all along- I posted last night on my blog about Obama's FISA problem relating to his flip-flops and disingenuous rationales for his stance on telecom immunity and I honestly think he and his campaign were surprised at how everyone came out and openly criticized him because many feel it's such an important issue and we are not willing to simply rubber-stamp everything he says and does, even if we ultimately are willing to vote for him over McCain.
And I think we can do the same thing with his moving to the right on all aspects of reproductive rights and his futile attempts to woo ultra-right wing Christian conservatives.
The Dems don't really learn from past mistakes- when a majority of Americans support reproductive rights, comprehensive sex education, better access to healthcare etc., trying to move to the right doesn't produce good results- it didn't work for Gore or Kerry and I really don't think it will work for Obama, so long as he sticks to basic principles and goes out on the offensive to define the issues instead of allowing Karl Rove and others to define them for him. Just as Hillary was not served well by some on her staff, I can't help but wonder if some of that is happening with Obama.
I agree that he should come out strong on women's rights and sexism in particular- to be honest, I can't think of a single reason not to.
I can't agree with you more Gloria. As someone who has worked in this movement for a long time, it sickens me how bad the comments have been out of Obama in the last week. I was a Hillary supporter in the primary and will reluctantly vote for Obama this November, knowing that our country and my rights will not survive 4 or more years of a McCain presidency. As a reproductive rights advocate who worked in the 2004 election cycle, I was also horrified by the coming to the right of John Kerry on this issue. All of the "I'm personally opposed to abortion but..." comments made him a weak candidate and combined with all of his other weak stances on issues was a major contributing factor in his loss.
I was hopeful that the democrats would have learned from the mistakes and missteps of 2004 and our candidate in 2008 would stand up for what he or she believed in, and that was one of the many reasons that I was a Hillary supporter, she has a LONG track record of standing up for what she believes in even if it is not the popular opinion. Now we have Obama, and his "pander tour" last week showed me that he is just another spineless democratic candidate who swings with the breeze when it comes to difficult issues.
Unfortunately he is what we are stuck with, and I will do everything in my power to put pressure on him now as a candidate and hopefully, later as president to make sure that he does stand up for the women of this country and protect our personal freedoms. But my heart is just not in this campaign, and I will be spending my money on and giving my time and energy to strong pro-choice candidates at the state and local level rather than the presidency this year.
What I want to know is why is Michelle not taking him to the woodshed on all this, especially in light of the fact that they have two daughters.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything that you've written in this post. I've been a huge supporter of him for the past few months, but with the issues you mentioned, and the teeter tottering on Iraq now, wiretapping, etc - I'm not sure I have as much faith in 'change' as I used to.
I feel he's abandoning us, those who gave him his nomination in order to appease the right...
Based on the responses here and elsewhere that I've posted this (thank you all), I'm thinking about a "so what are we going to do about it"(tm) action that everyone who has expressed concern can take to get this guy back on the path of righteousness and keep him there. Stay tuned...
I agree with the majority of your concerns here. He very much has given abortion opponents a foot in the door with his desire for mental health restrictions on abortion, but I disagree with the abstinance education issues.
He never stated that he was in favor of "abstinence-only" sex education. His record has shown him to be a staunch supporter of full-spectrum sex-ed. He was speaking to his audience. When speaking to the faithful, address issues they are concerned with.
He told them that he desired to teach children about abstinence, but left unspoken was that he would also teach them about contraception and safe sex.
My own sex ed was exactly the same way. "Abstinence is the only 100% effective method of birth control... but if you're going to do it anyway, here are the methods to protect yourself."
I have been so excited about Obama's campaign...that is, until recently. I don't think the left-wing/centrist/right-wing positions should be some sort of horizontal sliding scale. It's too far in for him to choose different beliefs. I've read his writings, and I thought I knew what he stood for. Now I'm wondering what his true positions are, and needless to say, I'm way past getting concerned.
I can certainly appreciate your desire "to do something" but whatever makes you think Obama is going to listen to anything you have to say?
You are liberals. He is running fast to the middle for all those centrist votes. Any appeasement of the liberal wing is going to tick off the moderate and conservative Democrats, the Independents and disaffected Republicans.
Do you really believe Barack Obama will jeopardize even one of those potential votes for you?
Barack Obama feels secure that liberals have left themselves nowhere to go but to CLING TO HIM - NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES TO YOU!
To prove it, this "new kind of politician" has flipped in your faces on FISA, campaign reform, sex education, abortion rights, separation of church and state, and ending the Iraq war - in a period of ten days!
And you are still there with him.
Each time he flips, his supporters flop with him. Most make excuses. Oh, it never really mattered. It's no big deal. Hey - politics ain't beanbag!
Others try to figure out how to change him.
This reminds me of a family who begins to realize there's a child molester in the house. Pretend it's not happening. HOPE he will CHANGE and not do it again. It's okay - you'll get used to him.
We all know how that turns out.
Think about it. Can you name one single thing that Obama has ever shifted on simply because it was the right thing to do for the American people? Something that could cost him an election?
Has he ever stood by a person or policy that he says he believes in - when he thought it could cost him an election?
Do we know of any instance when he turned down the opportunity to advance his political career because the advancement was made possible by less than honorable means - and turning it down could cost him an election?
If you can name examples of his doing any of these things, please let me know.
We have one of two bad things about to happen to this country - either John McCain or BARACK OBAMA.
To Matt's point, I know exactly what Obama was doing in his statement about sex education, and it was devious at worst, disingenuous a best. There are ways to speak respectfully but honestly to a crowd that you know disagrees with you. Goodness knows, I did it plenty of times in my career.
All comprehensive sex education programs include abstinence, by the way; I'm not arguing that point, nor would I expect Obama to speak against abstinence within a comprehensive program. That's not what he did. He used words carefully coded so the audience would hear what he wanted them to. That chicken will come home to roost, wait and see.
It's comments about disillusion like Maria's and Pamela's that will cause him the most trouble in November. Obama needs to recognize very quickly that he can't afford to deflate the enthusiasm of his base. Instead, he needs to inspire such people to bring 10 more like themselves to the ballot box.
Democrats had two particularly outstanding candidates this year. It is most unfortunate that they and some of their supporters have ended up with as much acrimony as now exists.
As I think about it, the great irony here is that it looks like if he wins, Obama will turn out to have a very Clintonesque administration.
I got a good chuckle from punditmom's question. I can just see Michelle taking him to the woodshed. But remember, she refused to call herself feminist...
Gloria, I have worked with Senators Obama, McCain, and Clinton over the past five years on the Hill. Before you write Senator Obama off, I strongly advocate that you give some more thought to the "what are we going to do about it" action plan as I have always found him to be receptive to whatever issue we brought to him- in direct contrast to Senator Clinton. She was much more interested in the sound bite for the news outlets, sometimes sabatoging the resolution brought before her to the detriment of the women, children, sick, and elderly we represented. I never understood how this Senator became the champion for women's causes but if she can change then I believe he can change for you as well.
politicsandamericanpie -
I challenge you to back up your malicious allegations about Senator Clinton with something other than your suspiciously Obama-esque say-so.
LindaA1,
Perhaps you misunderstood me, by the end of the campaign I felt Senator Clinton had changed and that was the intent of my comment. I am hoping the Gloria gives Senator Obama the same opportunity as I gave Senator Clinton- and that I'm hoping you give me.
I am bummed about Obama myself, although I supported him and still do. The problem is with the system -- if, as Nixon said, you have to run to the right in the primaries and run to the center in the general, then Obama is doing what every candidate does. This lowers his ability to appear transformative, however, and pisses off the younger voters, who are sorely needed in the election, and the women, also needed.
But then, what good does it do if he doesn't get elected because he stood on his principles and alienated the undecideds? We talk about this every day on NewsGang Live, and we never come to a conclusion:-) It's a group of politically committed, thoughtful amateurs at politics, and even WE can't come to a consensus. How will the voters?
Welcome Francine and Julie.
Everyone evolves and changes, and should. And yes, presidential candidates tack to the center--Democratic candidates that is. When did Bush tack to the center? In fact,his moral certitude is one of the things voters like about him even though they may disagree with his positions. And McCain seems to be tacking ever more rightward (though those of us from AZ always knew he was hard right).
Don't you think people would rather vote for someone who is definitely wrong than someone who is tepidly right (or left as the case might be)? And where's the line between principled change and pandering?
politicsandamericanpie -
YOU SAY -
"...but if she can change then I believe he can change for you as well."
Wow! That's an understatement. Obama obviously has no problem changing - and then changing - and then changing again. It appears to depend on who's in his face at the moment.
Perhaps that's why you found him so amenable?
And how is it that you are supposed to believe anything he tells you when he does agree to CHANGE for you?
You don't have to believe online exaggerations about Obama's growing legion of flip flops or "refinements" or WORMs as we anti-Obama folks call them (WHAT OBAMA REALLY MEANT). Just sit down in the privacy of your own home and jot down the dozen or so that should immediately come to mind.
I'm guessing you'll have the recipe for a non-stop Pander Party in your hands.
politicsandamericanpie-
I agree- I think the netroots and grassroots can be a powerful voice for change and while some are very cynical about our belief that that is possible, such cynicism will get us nowhere.
While Obama needs to appeal to more than just the base of the party, he has to know he needs to also not sell out the base- this is a lesson every democrat who runs for POTUS has to deal with it and some deal with it better than others. The democratic party has usually been very pro-choice and it needs to stay that way- he has nothing to gain from moving the right on this issue, particularly as McCain will have trouble with the fact that he *is* actually so far to the right on this issue (Carly Fiona not withstanding ;)) that he's going to have to rely on the media to keep portraying him as the moderate that he is NOT.
But gloria's point is a good one- we need to turn disappointment and even anger into constructive action. The question is what is the best way to do it.
There are over 230 websites representing dozens of Hillary supporter organizations dedicated to cleaning up the DNC, the Democratic leadership and opposing Barack Obama. The "Just Say No Deal" website has links.
Will Bowers of PUMA estimates we represent 2.5 million members - Hillary supporters who have had enough. Some will stay at home, some will write in Hillary, some will vote third party, some will vote for John McCain - but we all will vote against Barack Obama one way or the other.
You still apparently want to believe you can clean up Obama's act by appealing to him. I wish you luck with that.
I have scrutinized Obama's past performances and actions. I see not one instance of supporters outside his campaign staff affecting change on this man- well, make that CHANGE you can actually believe in. If you cannot control him with some leverage that would cost him the Presidency, you will not be successful managing your candidate.
Obama's poll numbers are slipping according to today's Real Clear Politics site. He projected a $100 million fundraising month for June - he raised just over $30 million. His website ratings are dismal lately.
Can you see where this is heading?
Hillary Clinton is still a candidate for President - with a suspended campaign. She won the popular vote. She still has a large number of delegates pledged to her and many Obama delegates are now privately expressing buyers remorse. Obama is still not the official nominee. The vote will be taken at the convention in late August.
To me, supporting Hillary's return to the campaign is your only real chance of avoiding John McCain.
I will support Barrack, but voted for Hillary. I too have serious concerns about his commitment to Women's Reproductive Rights.
However, I temper my concern with an understanding of history: As a Black Man, Barrack is well aware of the wide spread reproductive injustice experienced by the Black community...and how many of the Black churches, and Black Women for that matter, are suspicious about abortion. They don't see it as "CHOICE," but rather as just another form of ethnic cleansing.
When we look at how young Black Women were coerced to undergo permanent sterilization in exchange for welfare in Montgomery Alabama, (Supreme court case: Relf Sisters) the basis for this hedging and mistrust is understandable.
So, the time has come for our nation to face our checkered history. We must make it part of the national dialogue, and we must get the message out that "CHOICE" is the only way to keep the government out of a woman's womb and protect our freedom.
You raise an excellent point kelley and we do need to be mindful of history while also dealing with the realities that are out there in different communities and how that plays into the current political climate.
It was not until I became a nurse doing outreach and education in clinics in inner cities, that I became aware of the suspicion of some towards aspects of the reproductive choice movement
Kelley -
With all due respect, I can't see how black women's historical mistrust of abortion in any way excuses (or should temper our anger about) Obama's flip on abortion rights.
Obama is a highly educated man who knows abortion is not ethnic cleansing. Are you saying Obama is honoring the black community's historical mistrust of abortion by limiting abortion rights in the year 2008 - effectively punishing today's women and future generations of women?
I've re-read your post several times and can't seem to interpret it any other way.
YOU SAY "...the basis for this hedging and mistrust is understandable."
Obama's flip is understandable yes - but not in a sense of history. What we understand is that he is callously pandering to the evangelicals and conservatives because he believes he can get away with it.
Kelley, welcome. Your conclusion--that making sure every woman has a choice about her reproductive destiny is the most just and equitable position-- is exactly where we should start. The whole idea of choice is to remove coercion of any kind from the picture.
Linda's right here in pointing out Obama fully understands that. After all, he has a proudly African-American wife who exercised her choices to get an education, pursue a high powered profession, and then to have two apparently well spaced and much cherished children. The American dream, women's version, no?
So one thread of this discussion is about reproductive rights and justice itself. We're clear that we expect Obama to stay firm on his previous commitments (which supposedly represent his convictions) that abortion should be legal and accessible, that he supports family planning services and comprehensive sex education.
But the other key thread is not so much the position Obama has taken on abortion or any other specific issue, but that he is changing his positions, racing to the center-right on so many issues that it makes my head spin. That speaks to the question of character in a big way. He needs to get a grip and remember who he is. He was brilliant in walking into the wave of controversy on the race issue, seizing the opportunity to teach and lead. That's what he must do now on other contentious issues, in particular regarding sexism and its anti-choice underpinnings. Now is the time for us to hold him accountable; if he's elected, he'll be much less open to constituent pressure.
As to the third thread, Clinton's suspended campaign and whether it should remain open to reactivation, I think she is doing the right thing. It's a very long shot and not likely to prevail. But it is a legitimate use of the democratic process and she is entitled to leverage her 18 million votes. I am proud of her strength and persistence even as I am sad that she waited too long to override the really bad advice that squandered the advantages she started out with.
I do object to character assassination by either side's supporters, because in the end, no candidate is perfect but a Democratic administration is going to be ever so much better for the country and for women than another retrograde, right-wing Republican administration.
"He was brilliant in walking into the wave of controversy on the race issue, seizing the opportunity to teach and lead."
Exactly.