Froma Harrop is my favorite Harry Potter villian.

"A lot of moderates who like McCain seem to be averting their gaze from this and trying to persuade themselves that it's all just politics"

I'd hazard a guess and say these are male moderates. I don't think there are a lot of female moderates who would be this stupid.

At the end of the day, McCain was, and is, and ever will be, Orrin Hatch 2.0, an extreme conservative Western senator, only on this release, they tweaked the media interface, installed a new biography module, and got some graphic arts professionals to design the box.

Underneath, though, it's the same old code.

He might as well be Steve Symms.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Mar 8, 2007 5:04:36 PM

Not news

Hillary supporters who claim to be considering throwing their support to McCain should take heed.

McCain tends to use soothing, nonconfrontational language when he talks about social issues, but his actual record on abortion is about as hardline conservative as you can get.

Which means, of course, that Maveric McStraightTalk is being deliberately deceptive about his position on abortion, trying to sound less radical than he is in order to appeal the likes of Harrop.

Of course, the so-called "Liberal Media" won't endanger its BBQ privileges in order to point out the conflict, let alone make McCain try to explain his radical record.

Abortion, asmortion. This campaign is OVER.
McCain just went on record saying he'd veto every single beer!

He should fold up his tent and go home. Oh, wait. Cindy won't let him in.

I think he was talking about 3.2 beer.

Any female Democrat who's going to vote for McCain purely out of anger at the media for its sexism, now vented at Obama ought to simply change their affiliation to Republican. That way they can declare their allegiance to the party which masters such stupidity.

"McCain just went on record saying he'd veto every single beer!"

If verbal miscues determined presidential candidates, we'd be celebrating the last year of Al Gore's presidency.

And Ronald Reagan once said that trees caused more air pollution than cars. Look how much that hurt him!

"Any female Democrat who's going to vote for McCain purely out of anger at the media for its sexism, now vented at Obama ought to simply change their affiliation to Republican. That way they can declare their allegiance to the party which masters such stupidity."

And racism.

"If verbal miscues determined presidential candidates, we'd be celebrating the last year of Al Gore's presidency."

No, we'd be celebrating the last year of Dubya's presidency. He certainly has outdone just about every president for sheer miscue idiocy. Including a president with Alzheimers.

Proud to be an Americuhn (sing it now!). The only country that revels in electing idiots.

I seem to remember Froma Harrop several months ago being upset about the alleged bad treatment of Clinton, and suggesting that McCain might be a workable option for Democratic women. I assume that's where she's coming from.

Kevin missed one key point in the article:

And if a President McCain did put forth a controversial candidate, the Democratic majority in the Senate -- sure to grow after the upcoming election -- would put a quick end to the idea. (emphasis mine)

Regardless of what McCain wants to do (and I agree that he's likely to cut a deal), the Senate will be majority Democrat. His ideal candidates won't be getting through. That's one of many reasons it's okay to be a bad Democrat, because it's safe to vote Republican this year.

"...Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates..." JM

He'll also probably say....

Some Americans got pregnant, thinking they could get
an abortion later. Well, just as with the mortgage mess, don't do something you'll later regret. I think abortion should be banned globally....

He blames the victims of the mortgage mess, why not those who get pregnant?

I bet he cracks a joke to the effect...Well it's your fault you tried to use a condom twice...cut to the signature McCain smile (which really is a grimace if you look carefully)

I'd hazard a guess and say these are male moderates. I don't think there are a lot of female moderates who would be this stupid.
Posted by: Just sayin'

quod erat demonstrandum ...

Regardless of what McCain wants to do (and I agree that he's likely to cut a deal), the Senate will be majority Democrat. His ideal candidates won't be getting through. That's one of many reasons it's okay to be a bad Democrat, because it's safe to vote Republican this year.
Posted by: Cal

"cut to the signature McCain smile (which really is a grimace if you look carefully)"

The same one Dubya gives when Dick or Karl are burrowing their hands up his Charlie McCarthy ass.

Sure hope lobbyists wear latex gloves. He's kinda old and his immune system might not be what it should be.

Cal,
Great parody site! I'm still laughing! I wonder if anybody thinks it's real?

Obama has a mirror-image situation with respect to pro-life moderates who are tempted to vote for him because of his conciliatory rhetoric on the subject, despite the fact that he's as much an extremist on the pro-choice side as McCain apparently is on the pro-life side.

I think there's a lot of valuable political turf available to whichever party really gets to the middle on the abortion issue. But the extremists in both parties seem reluctant to let anything like that actually happen.

Hillary supporters who claim to be considering throwing their support to McCain should take heed.

Methinks those Clinton supporters claiming to vote McCain in November are really a bunch of Republican trolls loitering in comments sections like this with the express purpose of getting Democrats to hurl ridiculous insults at one another. So far it seems to have been working in spades here, which makes us about as smart as Elmer Fudd when he falls for Bugs Bunny in drag. No reason that needs to continue.

the Senate will be majority Democrat. His ideal candidates won't be getting through.

Yeah, because the Democrats did such a good job blocking Roberts and Alito. Oh, wait...

That's one of many reasons it's okay to be a Republican

Fixed it for you.

because it's safe to vote Republican this year.

It's never "safe" to vote for a party with the track record of mendacity, incompetence, corruption and tyranny that the modern Republican Party has been so busy establishing. Unless, of course, you're one of those dead-enders who still approves of the job the Bush/Cheney administration is doing.

To be fair to McCain, he was only going to veto the beers with the earmarks.

Who wants to slurp earwax anyway?

A lot of moderates who like McCain seem to be averting their gaze from this and trying to persuade themselves that it's all just politics and the real McCain is a lot like them: not a big fan of abortion, maybe, but not really extreme about it either.

Since a lot of those McCain-loving moderates also tend to be affluent, white, suburban professionals, I would imagine it's at least as likely that they know the real score but simply don't give a damn, since they'll always be able to find a way to get *their* abortions.

Arguments about abortion are always about poor women; rich women have historically been able to afford the *good* illegal abortionists or to be able to travel to Europe or, later, New York for a legal abortion. That's why anti-choice is a good position for Republicans; it plays well to the rubes and doesn't really affect the ruling class.

Two posts in a row impugning McCain. Clearly, Kevin is trying to speak some sense into Hillary supporters who are thinking of jumping ship.

As others have pointed out, anyone who puts their faith in a politician because they believe the politician is not being truthful about his actual positions goes beyond being stupid.

Yeah, because the Democrats did such a good job blocking Roberts and Alito. Oh, wait...

Oh, wait, indeed.

"Oh, wait. I'm such a moron I don't know who controlled the Senate in 2005."

The "trying to convince themselves of McC's moderation" line sends chills up my spine. We heard it in the opening days of W's first term, and, mindbendingly, in the opening days of his second term.

No third term for Lucy van Pelt!

This is not a conversation Democrats are having with themselves about John McCain, but about how important they think abortion is.

Actually abortion is just one of the hot buttons that the organized interest groups dominating the Democratic Party insist every Democrat push, and push hard. Sen. Obama, a conventional urban liberal, will oblige. Sen. McCain, who has never pretended to be anything but pro-life, obviously won't. Democrats (and still more, independents) who like McCain probably don't feel that way because they are being cleverly deceived; they may just not think that abortion is as important to them as it is to, say, NARAL. To the hard core of the Democratic Party this is a shocking thought. It's worse than questioning whether affirmative action really does any good, or whether tort reform is a good idea, or whether Jerusalem must remain undivided as the capital of Israel -- it's like questioning whether rigid and enthusiastic adherence to the right positions on each and every one of these issues is that important.

But of course it is, and any deviation from it is not only wrong but extreme. Extreme, extreme, extreme! "The groups" have spoken.

I would not discount the Harrop view as totally indiosyncratic. My wife, an elder feminist herself, got a report on a high-level meeting of other elder feminists the other day in New York City, and there was much talk of voting for McCain. My wife's informant who attended the meeting thought that the McCainiacs were nuts, but there they were.

I think there's a lot of valuable political turf available to whichever party really gets to the middle on the abortion issue. But the extremists in both parties seem reluctant to let anything like that actually happen.
Posted by: Maggie

... Maybe ... it seems that the anti-choice position is less consistent with most polling data, and so the rightwing would need to go further to make it to the "center" than does the left.

but this year, why bother? Bush's reputation, along with all things republican, is dogshit. The economy is terrible, and with unemployment, lack of insurance, and gas at $5/gallon, catering to the anti-choice crowds can wait for a different year.

"there's a lot of valuable political turf available to whichever party really gets to the middle on the abortion issue"

Abortion is a non-starter because either it's a woman's choice or it isn't. The only "viable" area of resolution is pre-conception and unfortunately for the virgin crowd, abstinence ain't the solution. The only realistic place to start is birth control and sex education.

Studies time and time again have shown that kids are gonna have sex. Throw all the god dust at it that you want: we're animals.

All those abstinence pledges amongst teenagers these days? Oddly enough they coincide with a huge bump in blow jobs. Monica Lewinski was ahead of her time.

Obama has a mirror-image situation with respect to pro-life moderates who are tempted to vote for him because of his conciliatory rhetoric on the subject, despite the fact that he's as much an extremist on the pro-choice side as McCain apparently is on the pro-life side.

Thanks for the display of High Broderism, "Maggie," but in what way, exactly, is Obama "as much an extremist on the pro-choice side as McCain apparently is on the pro-life side"?

I think there's a lot of valuable political turf available to whichever party really gets to the middle on the abortion issue.

What "middle" would you be referring to? The pro-choice side wants to preserve a woman's control over her own reproductive system, but accepts certain restrictions that are already in place. The anti-choice crowd wants abortion banned, period, full stop, and nothing less will satisfy them. Indeed, by attacking Griswold the anti-choice crowd is also attacking the basis of the right to contraception.

Now there's a radical position totally out of step with the mainstream. What do you contend Obama has to match that? Do enlighten us.

One more thing:

quod erat demonstrandum ... (as in, Cal is a man and thus doesn't care about abortion rights)

The name "Cal" isn't quite as unambiguous as "Jack" or "John". At least in my case.

Which completely screws up your little demonstration, alas.

'I think there's a lot of valuable political turf available to whichever party really gets to the middle on the abortion issue.'

Maggie --- what middle? To me, 'pro-choice' means abortions are available to every woman who wants one; 'anti-choice' means placing restrictions on abortion so that some women who want them can't get them (not safely, at any rate).

Apart from setting a gestational threshold after which abortions aren't allowed (it's my understanding Roe currently sets a threshold of the beginning of the third trimester), a candidate either supports the former position or the latter. There is no middle.

Oh, wait. I'm such a moron I don't know who controlled the Senate in 2005

If we didn't have Reid showing how little narrow control of the Senate matters by allowing McConnell to filibuster bills by default, you might have a point, jackass. As it is, control of the Senate or no, what exactly did the Democrats do to oppose Roberts and Alito?

Counting on the Senate to save us from McCain's radical picks is far from "safe," and certainly not as safe as not having a Republican in the White House at all.

junebug is right -- you aren't fooling anyone. Though Bugs Bunny did look kind of hot in drag.....er, ahem.... ;-)

Speaking of not fooling anyone, Zathras, your ridiculous pretense that abortion is more of a hot-button issue for Democrats is just another reason no one listens to you.

quod erat demonstrandum ... (as in, Cal is a man and thus doesn't care about abortion rights)The name "Cal" isn't quite as unambiguous as "Jack" or "John". At least in my case. Which completely screws up your little demonstration, alas.
Posted by: Cal

First ... no one stupid enough to vote repub this year is going to lecture me on Latin. Second (out of curiosity) ... are you a man or not? I had only assumed you were because your argument smacks of the rhetoric of white males.

And Ronald Reagan once said that trees caused more air pollution than cars. Look how much that hurt him!

I just put a root though his ribcage. Who's laughing now?

Regardless of what McCain wants to do (and I agree that he's likely to cut a deal), the Senate will be majority Democrat. His ideal candidates won't be getting through. That's one of many reasons it's okay to be a bad Democrat, because it's safe to vote Republican this year.

A Democratic Senate is no guaruntee of anything. A Democratic Senate approved Clarence Thomas in 1991, and that was after the stuff about Anita Hill came out. Democrats from Red States and red-leaning states will be under tremendous pressure to approve a McCain nominee.

And if you actually bothered to read Steve Benen's post that Kevin linked to, you would know that there are issues that go beyond the Supreme Court, from everything to international family planning funding to public education for emergency contraception.

http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL999/mccain.html

On August 26, [1999] McCain said, "I have a moral belief that life begins at inception."

I myself tend to believe life begins at the beginning. Which certainly clears everything up.

"veto every single beer"

Who's the secret Muslim now? Huh?

Regardless of what McCain wants to do (and I agree that he's likely to cut a deal), the Senate will be majority Democrat. His ideal candidates won't be getting through. That's one of many reasons it's okay to be a bad Democrat, because it's safe to vote Republican this year.

Because a President McCain would be forced to offer up federal judges & Supreme Court Justices who get down with habeas? With federal regulation? With the idea that labor laws have already been hollowed out enough, and that maybe it's time the one or two remaining laws got applied once in a while? We can be perfectly comfortable with Republicans stacking the courts for another 4-8 years because they're suddenly willing to bargain. What a relief.

if you actually bothered to read Steve Benen's post that Kevin linked to, you would know that there are issues that go beyond the Supreme Court, from everything to international family planning funding to public education for emergency contraception.

Peter raises a good point...Bush has implemented much of his radical, faith-based anti-abortion policies via executive orders (and also simply by ludicrous, fundie-feel-good funding priorities, such as the counterproductive abstinence education). We know Obama will review and overturn many of these, and Harrop's touching naivete aside, have precious little reason to believe McSame would do anything but continue them.

I'd add to junebug's point that, while I fully expect the Republicans to spend at least a generation in the wilderness as reasonable people of many political stripes abandon it -- hey, that's what happens when Bush ruins your brand; it makes "Cal"'s suggestion that people flock to the filthy Republican banner all the more droll -- there's no guarantee the Congress will stay in Democratic hands.

Even if it's offered in good faith, "Cal"'s suggestion that it's "safe" to vote for McCain for President is ludicrous on its face. You know what's safe? A Democratic Congress led by a Democratic President Obama. (It'd have the added bonus of allowing the ejection of the pious hypocrite Lieberman from his committee chair.)

As it is, control of the Senate or no, what exactly did the Democrats do to oppose Roberts and Alito?

So you are saying that the Democrats would not oppose a Republican president if he nominated someone like Bork to replace Ginsburg?

Hey, if they're that weaselly, then for sure McCain's the right candidate. We can't trust such cowards to run the country, if they won't even stick up for their judges.

Me, though, I think the odds of Ginsburg or Stevens being replaced by a conservative are non-existent. The public will be paying attention.

Second (out of curiosity) ... are you a man or not?

You should ask that before you assume. Better yet, you should just stop thinking that you can predict views by gender.

Those of you are progressive Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton, and now considering voting for McCain or sitting out the election, by all means go and check out Cal's site. I'm sure you'll find his reasons why it's safe to vote Republican very reassuring:

(1) Iraq doesn't matter, because our troops aren't coming home anytime soon no matter who's in office.

(2) Health Care Reform doesn't matter, because the next President isn't going to be able to do anything about health care anyway.

(3) A vote for Hilary would be a blow to the "Moveon.org" agenda.

http://www.dontbeagooddemocrat.com/

You know what's safe? A Democratic Congress led by a Democratic President Obama. (It'd have the added bonus of allowing the ejection of the pious hypocrite Lieberman from his committee chair.)

This is it, exactly -- the way you get things done is by controlling the nomination, controlling the committee vote on the nomination, and controlling the floor vote on the nomination. If you're a Democrat and you choose not to exploit that opportunity and instead content yourself with whatever a Republican president sends your way, then you're really not serious about using the levers of government to improve people's lives.

You know what's safe? A Democratic Congress led by a Democratic President Obama.

Actually, I think a good number of moderate Democrats think that's a horrible idea.

The Democratic party does not need to be encouraged in its lunge to the left.

"he'll do everything he can to reduce or eliminate access to abortion, starting with poor women and working his way up"

This is incorrect. He'll do everything he can to reduce or eliminate access to abortion, starting and ending with poor women.

The Democratic party does not need to be encouraged in its lunge to the left.

Okay, what's my prize for the accuracy of my 3:18 comment? If it's a lifetime supply of Turtle Wax, I'm goin' for what's behind Curtain #3.

So you are saying that the Democrats would not oppose a Republican president if he nominated someone like Bork to replace Ginsburg?

I'm saying the likelihood -- no, the certainty -- that McCain would in fact nominate someone more like Bork than Ginsburg, and the possibility that whatever Democratic opposition there may or may not be might not be enough to prevent confirmation -- proves how asinine your notion that it's "safe" to vote for him really is.

Hey, if they're that weaselly, then for sure McCain's the right candidate.

McCain is the right candidate ifyou want more of the same Bush agenda that the overwhelming majority of the American people opposes.

We can't trust such cowards to run the country, if they won't even stick up for their judges.

As the past eight years have proven conclusively, we can't trust Republicans to run the country, period, full stop. (And when it comes to opposition, I remind you that far from opposing Bush's radical and/or incompetent policies, McCain has been right there supporting him.

But we can trust McCain to nominate judges much more favorable to Republicans than Democrats. So, again, your contention that it's "safe" to vote for McCain is insane, stupidly transparent Republican trolling or both.

Me, though, I think the odds of Ginsburg or Stevens being replaced by a conservative are non-existent. The public will be paying attention.

Yup, it's "both."

You should ask that before you assume. Better yet, you should just stop thinking that you can predict views by gender.

I observe in passing that you didn't answer the question.

Actually, I think a good number of Republicans think that's a horrible idea.

Fixed it for you. As junebug points out, you aren't fooling anyone.

The Democratic party does not need to be encouraged in its lunge to the left.

But it is being encouraged, by loyal Americans of all walks of life who have seen firsthand the failures, mendacity, incompetence, corruption and tyrrany of eight years of Republican rule.

And your contention that it's somehow "safe" to vote McCain -- pretending that he wouldn't nominate conservatives for the Supreme Court, yet! -- has been exposed for the idiocy that it is. Rip that one up, "Cal." You aren't fooling anyone.

Your trolling has ceased to be amusing, "Cal." Whatever you're being paid, it's wasted. Not that I have a problem with that.

Responding to drive-by frothing troll "mhr" is a mug's game, of course, but I'll see his/her/its "Canada allows abortion up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy- a goal that US liberals can aim at" bullshit and see him/her/it the fact that the goal the radical right is aiming at is eliminating the right to contraception. No sale.

Okay, what's my prize for the accuracy of my 3:18 comment? If it's a lifetime supply of Turtle Wax, I'm goin' for what's behind Curtain #3.

But what if it's Bugs Bunny in drag?

Who the hell is Froma Harrop, and why does anyone care what he or she thinks?

Obama has a mirror-image situation ... he's as much an extremist on the pro-choice side as McCain apparently is on the pro-life side.

Wrong! To be as extremist as McCain and Republicans about abortion would mean mandatory abortion for all women not deemed suitable by the state to raise or have children. Allowing women to choose for themselves to have or not have children is the moderate - centrist position.

Obama is not for mandatory abortion and will not receive the endorsement of Eugenics Now.

Fromma Harrop's silly column attempting to hurt Obama by sending disgruntled Clintonistas to McCain has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with Israel. Like many other moderate-to-conservative Jewish print journalists, Harrop has always done all she could to defeat Obama because his fund-raising prowess and opposition to PAC money in politics makes his the first serious candidate for the presidency since Carter, in either party, not bought and paid for by Israel. Obama's far from anti-Israel, as his excellent and forceful speech before AIPAC recently made clear, for any who doubted him. But he does, de facto, have a unique freedom of maneuver in the Middle East because, unlike Clinton and McCain, he doesn't depend on AIPAC or wealthy Jewish donors to finance his campaigns. In an era when elements of the Israeli government, and their neo-con American supporters, are all chomping at the bit to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," as McCain chillingly joked, to take us even further into a Middle Eastern abyss created by neo-cons in the service of their crazy idea of "protecting" Israel, journalists like Harrop will try anything to defeat Obama, the only hope now to stave off the crazy, counterproductive obsessions of the neo-cons and their hawkish Israeli backers.

Fromma Harrop's silly column attempting to hurt Obama by sending disgruntled Clintonistas to McCain has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with Israel. Like many other moderate-to-conservative Jewish print journalists, Harrop has always done all she could to defeat Obama because his fund-raising prowess and opposition to PAC money in politics makes his the first serious candidate for the presidency since Carter, in either party, not bought and paid for by Israel. Obama's far from anti-Israel, as his excellent and forceful speech before AIPAC recently made clear, for any who doubted him. But he does, de facto, have a unique freedom of maneuver in the Middle East because, unlike Clinton and McCain, he doesn't depend on AIPAC or wealthy Jewish donors to finance his campaigns. In an era when elements of the Israeli government, and their neo-con American supporters, are all chomping at the bit to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," as McCain chillingly joked, to take us even further into a Middle Eastern abyss created by neo-cons in the service of their crazy idea of "protecting" Israel, journalists like Harrop will try anything to defeat Obama, the only hope now to stave off the crazy, counterproductive obsessions of the neo-cons and their hawkish Israeli backers.

" ... would mean mandatory abortion for all women not deemed suitable by the state to raise or have children"

Well, I do remember a good friend of mine, a feminist, who once did state "who lets them breed?", when noticing lots of folks filling up their grocery carts with frozen dinners just before there was supposed to be a huge ice/snow storm in DC and predictions that the power would be out for quite some time.

Fromma Harrop's silly column attempting to hurt Obama by sending disgruntled Clintonistas to McCain has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with neo-con take on Israel. Like many other moderate-to-conservative Jewish print journalists, Harrop has always done all she could to defeat Obama because his fund-raising prowess and opposition to PAC money in politics makes his the first serious candidate for the presidency since Carter, in either party, not bought and paid for by Israel. Obama's far from anti-Israel, as his excellent and forceful speech before AIPAC recently made clear, for any who doubted him. But he does, de facto, have a unique freedom of maneuver in the Middle East because, unlike Clinton and McCain, he doesn't depend on AIPAC or wealthy Jewish donors to finance his campaigns. In an era when elements of the Israeli government, and their neo-con American supporters, are all chomping at the bit to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," as McCain chillingly joked, to take us even further into a Middle Eastern abyss created by neo-cons in their proxy war for Israel in Iraq, waged by them in the service of their crazy idea of "protecting" Israel, journalists like Harrop will try anything to defeat Obama, the only hope now to stave off the crazy, counterproductive obsessions of the neo-cons and their hawkish Israeli backers. Obama rightly terrifies the Israel Lobby because he has created de facto campaign finance reform on the Internet which not only freed him from "special interests" in general but from the Lobby specifically. If he wins in November, he will show all charismatic American candidates how they can raise more money than the special interests can provide, simply, like him, by going directly to the public. This would make his revolution in fund-raising a much more historically consequential thing, even, than his victory as an African-American.

Fromma Harrop's silly column attempting to hurt Obama by sending disgruntled Clintonistas to McCain has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with neo-con take on Israel. Like many other moderate-to-conservative Jewish print journalists, Harrop has always done all she could to defeat Obama because his fund-raising prowess and opposition to PAC money in politics makes his the first serious candidate for the presidency since Carter, in either party, not bought and paid for by Israel. Obama's far from anti-Israel, as his excellent and forceful speech before AIPAC recently made clear, for any who doubted him. But he does, de facto, have a unique freedom of maneuver in the Middle East because, unlike Clinton and McCain, he doesn't depend on AIPAC or wealthy Jewish donors to finance his campaigns. In an era when elements of the Israeli government, and their neo-con American supporters, are all chomping at the bit to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," as McCain chillingly joked, to take us even further into a Middle Eastern abyss created by neo-cons in their proxy war for Israel in Iraq, waged by them in the service of their crazy idea of "protecting" Israel, journalists like Harrop will try anything to defeat Obama, the only hope now to stave off the crazy, counterproductive obsessions of the neo-cons and their hawkish Israeli backers. Obama rightly terrifies the Israel Lobby because he has created de facto campaign finance reform on the Internet which not only freed him from "special interests" in general but from the Lobby specifically. If he wins in November, he will show all charismatic American candidates how they can raise more money than the special interests can provide, simply, like him, by going directly to the public. This would make his revolution in fund-raising a much more historically consequential thing, even, than his victory as an African-American.

Fromma Harrop's silly column attempting to hurt Obama by sending disgruntled Clintonistas to McCain has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with neo-con take on Israel. Like many other moderate-to-conservative Jewish print journalists, Harrop has always done all she could to defeat Obama because his fund-raising prowess and opposition to PAC money in politics makes his the first serious candidate for the presidency since Carter, in either party, not bought and paid for by Israel. Obama's far from anti-Israel, as his excellent and forceful speech before AIPAC recently made clear, for any who doubted him. But he does, de facto, have a unique freedom of maneuver in the Middle East because, unlike Clinton and McCain, he doesn't depend on AIPAC or wealthy Jewish donors to finance his campaigns. In an era when elements of the Israeli government, and their neo-con American supporters, are all chomping at the bit to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," as McCain chillingly joked, to take us even further into a Middle Eastern abyss created by neo-cons in their proxy war for Israel in Iraq, waged by them in the service of their crazy idea of "protecting" Israel, journalists like Harrop will try anything to defeat Obama, the only hope now to stave off the crazy, counterproductive obsessions of the neo-cons and their hawkish Israeli backers. Obama rightly terrifies the Israel Lobby because he has created de facto campaign finance reform on the Internet which not only freed him from "special interests" in general but from the Lobby specifically. If he wins in November, he will show all charismatic American candidates how they can raise more money than the special interests can provide, simply, like him, by going directly to the public. This would make his revolution in fund-raising a much more historically consequential thing, even, than his victory as an African-American.

On the 3:18 comment: "lunge to the left" is not a concern unique to Republicans. I realize they only sell one brand of Koolaid in your little echo chamber, but many moderate Democrats are turned off by the views of the folks who got Obama elected.

As for Greg's screed, I'm amused he would spend that much time on me. I've said many times who I am, and I've been posting on this and many other blogs for a long time. I own my own forum as well. I am exactly who I say I am: a person who has never voted for a Republican president (and in fact have almost never voted for a non-Democrat). I am probably not best described as a moderate Democrat, but it's the closest thing to it.

And I didn't answer the question, Greg, because you shouldn't need to know someone's gender to talk about their views. However, my gender, like my online identity, is pretty well documented throughout the blogosphere.

You should ask that before you assume. Better yet, you should just stop thinking that you can predict views by gender.
Posted by: Cal

right. white male it is.

Thanks for the display of High Broderism, "Maggie," but in what way, exactly, is Obama "as much an extremist on the pro-choice side as McCain apparently is on the pro-life side"?

Well, Obama thinks that women should be allowed to make their own healthcare decisions in consultation with their doctors, which is apparently an extreme far-left position. McCain knows that those silly little airheads can't be trusted to know what's best for them, so Big Daddy Government has to come in and decide on their behalf.

A civilized society should neither promote nor condone the slaughter of innocent children. There is an almost infinite variety of ways to PREVENT pregnancy, yet the blood-thirsty left vigorously insists that the destruction of unborn children must be defended and even encouraged. They attempt to disguise their love of death and destruction by calling it "reproductive rights," or "women's rights," or "right to choose," but the result is always the same...a violent, bloody death for the child, and often injury or death for the mother.

The left wails about the number of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but does not flinch at the fact that more children die in abortions EACH YEAR than TOTAL CASUALTIES in ALL of America's wars, dating back to 1775.

The left cries over the plight of baby seals, whales, or polar bears while callously butchering millions of unborn.

There are other ways of exercising reproductive rights and reproductive freedom. There are better choices to make.

Be civilized. Stop murdering children.

..."lunge to the left" is not a concern unique to Republicans. I realize they only sell one brand of Koolaid in your little echo chamber, but many moderate Democrats are turned off by the views of the folks who got Obama elected.

You've got a manifesto on your website, but you're concerned that it's Obama who's the extremist. Okay, we'll ignore the irony for a moment. So for examples of Obama's leftist extremism, your manifesto -- I'm sorry, your !Manifesto! -- links to a blog post about his "bitter" comment & a questionnaire dealing with a number of issues, and which is edited to begin with civil liberties. Since you don't indicate, one can only assume which of those questionnaire responses elicits your disapproval. Is it:

-- Obama's support for the addition of sexual orientation to the Human Rights Act? Domestic partnership legislation?
-- his opposition to mandatory AIDS testing for insurance or employment?
-- his opposition to legislation permitting employers to eavesdrop on employee phone conversations?
-- his support for the right of public employees to strike?
-- his opposition to the hiring of scabs in federal employment?
-- his support for family leave legislation in the private sector?
-- his support for the living wage?

Or does your fear of the Democratic Party "ced(ing) ground to the Moveon.org agenda," whatever that is, mean that you don't want to pass up the opportunity to remain Iraq for a hundred years?

It's anyone's guess. Maybe you could simplify the entire thing by explaining to us the issue that's so dear to you, and on which Obama is to the left of Clinton.

Which society slaughters children?

The US has killed countless Iraqi children because the current president from Texas ordered their death. The US probably killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese children, whose destruction was ordered by another Texan president.

Embryos are not children, however. People kill replicating masses of human cells every day, usually as a response to cancer, which an unwanted pregnancy is, both to the parents and to society.

The Democratic party does not need to be encouraged in its lunge to the left

I predict a massive platform fight over the proposed "Property is Theft" plank at the Denver convention.

Les aristos a la lanterne!

I predict a massive platform fight over the proposed "Property is Theft" plank at the Denver convention.

Lemme know if you see that thing anywhere. Someone lifted it from from my yard.

I'm pro-choice and still like McCain. My ovaries don't feel threaten by McCain, but my pocket book sure gets nightmare at the thought of Obama been president.

Do none of you Fear God. The Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Murdering innocent unborn babies is not the way to keep God,s blessings on this Great Land. McCain and Texan 2000 are right to oppose the mass slaughter of innocent babies.
49 Million babies have been Murderd Since 1973 1.2 million babies are currrently being Slaughtered every single Year. EVERY YEAR,more unborn children Die from Abortion than Americans died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars 1&2 the Korean, Vietnam, PersianGulf, and Afghanistan/Iraq Wars COMBINED!!!
Revolutionary War (25,324)
Civil War (498,332)
World War 1 (116,516)
World War 2 (545,108)
Korean War 54,246
Vietnam War (56,555)
Persian Gulf War (179)
Afganistan/Iraq War under 5,000 so far.
May our Lord Jesus Christ be always in your Hearts and on your minds and on your lips. May GOD BLESS You EVERY ONE.

Do none of you Fear God. The Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Murdering innocent unborn babies is not the way to keep God,s blessings on this Great Land. McCain and Texan 2000 are right to oppose the mass slaughter of innocent babies.
49 Million babies have been Murderd Since 1973 1.2 million babies are currrently being Slaughtered every single Year. EVERY YEAR,more unborn children Die from Abortion than Americans died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars 1&2 the Korean, Vietnam, PersianGulf, and Afghanistan/Iraq Wars COMBINED!!!
Revolutionary War (25,324)
Civil War (498,332)
World War 1 (116,516)
World War 2 (545,108)
Korean War 54,246
Vietnam War (56,555)
Persian Gulf War (179)
Afganistan/Iraq War under 5,000 so far.
May our Lord Jesus Christ be always in your Hearts and on your minds and on your lips. May GOD BLESS You EVERY ONE.

coolrepublica:

My ovaries don't feel threaten by McCain, but my pocket book sure gets nightmare at the thought of Obama been president.

If you're a feminist, then read Steve Benen's piece. It's not just about abortion, and it's not just about your ovaries.

But if your pocketbook is your priority, you should still back Obama. It's been fairly well documented that the economy does better with a Democrat in the White House (as if the past 7 years isn't evidence enough).

Birth control has come so far that abortion should be a dead issue. Pardon the pun.

Obama not only condonesd but promoted sexism with his silence as well as comments incliding "tea party" references. Why should I believe he'd fight for Roe anyway? He's a poseur.

Obama fought against "born alive" legislation when he was in the state legislature in IL. That may not sound extreme to you all, but to my pro-life friends who would otherwise vote for Obama in a heartbeat this comes across as an extremist position.

The 'middle' to which I refer could take one of two forms. The first would be legislative and that would be a stance which reflects the polling data I'm familiar with -- which is supportive of the abortion right, but also of some restrictions on its exercise. The second would be to push even harder with programs that would work to lower the abortion rate voluntarily. Obama has talked up the latter a bit. He's also talked about trying to move these dialogues onto a more civilized plain.

Anyway, there's a chunk of the electorate that is very tired of being held hostage to the Republicans because they are pro-life. But if the Democrats insist on having the whole cake on abortion, then they are going to lose a bunch of those votes. My point is just that a lot of those votes would swing over if there were a Democrat who supported basic abortion rights, but also recognized that there was room for some restrictions on it. But the reaction here would suggest that for many Democrats dogmatic purity on the abortion question is more important.

My ovaries don't feel threaten by McCain, but my pocket book sure gets nightmare at the thought of Obama been president.

Don't look now, but the Bush administration just stole the shirt off your back.

My point is just that a lot of those votes would swing over if there were a Democrat who supported basic abortion rights, but also recognized that there was room for some restrictions on it.

In other words, a Democrat who supports the status quo.

The US should move to a modified Chinese model of reproduction rights, at the very least requiring mandatory abortion for every pregnancy after a woman has given birth once. The best way to implement this policiy would be requiring all women who give birth to have hysterectomies immediately afterwards. Many women should be deemed inadequate for reproduction because of ignorance or inability to properly rear children and prevented from becoming pregnant. The world is already overpopulated and humans need to be prevented from continuing their relentless destruction of it. None of the American candidates for president have the correct policy for solving this problem because people are too worried about the morality of ending pregnancies or consider the rights of women to determine for themselves when and how many children they will bear to be inviolable. The destruction of the earth by humans has progressed too far for these quaint notions of morality and civil rights to be considered important any longer. Before the future is no longer possible, strict eugenics must be implemented to save the earth and human life.

The first would be legislative and that would be a stance which reflects the polling data I'm familiar with -- which is supportive of the abortion right, but also of some restrictions on its exercise.

Which is the condition we have right now.

there's a chunk of the electorate that is very tired of being held hostage to the Republicans because they are pro-life. But if the Democrats insist on having the whole cake on abortion, then they are going to lose a bunch of those votes. My point is just that a lot of those votes would swing over if there were a Democrat who supported basic abortion rights, but also recognized that there was room for some restrictions on it.

What whole cake? Again, Democrats by and large do "support[] basic abortion rights, but also recognize[] that there was room for some restrictions on it."

Meanwhile, as was pointed out upthread, there is no middle ground with the anti-choice crowd. They're for banning abortion for starters, and some are frank about their desire to end access to contraception as well. Polling data doesn't come near supporting these extreme positions, but that's where the Republicans are.

You're either arguing from ignorance, a victim of the dishonest Republican propaganda of "abortion on demand," or you're a concern troll on an Amy Sullivan scale. In either case, the qualities of the Democrats you claim to desire exists right now, while the Repukes are adamantly and obsessively anti-choice. These facts should vbe enough to render further discussion unneccessary.

You're either reacting to dishonest Rep

Over 6 million babies have been aborted in this country since Bush took office.

How can McCain BE any more right than a supposed "saved Christian" as Bush claimed during his campaigning days?

The reality is, abortion has been reduced to a campaigning tool. McCain pushes the abortion button like he'll push the immigration button while campaigning, and generate the usual Pavlovian knee-jerk reaction from the usual Republicans.

More reality. Bush used people with this same exact carrot during HIS campaign and once in office, not one thing was changed on that issue, yet conservatives staunchly support Bush still. McSame is following the GOP's "How to Campaign Manual for Dummies".

I asked a fellow voter who wouldn't vote for Obama because of just this issue and he said it was because Obama "actively" supports abortion.

I guess Bush "inactively" supporting abortion is okay with conservatives.

And another reality. If abortion were banned, it would not mean those same 6 million unwanted babies would have been born in the US, it means a higher percentage of kitchen abortions done by unskilled persons in less than sanitary conditions, resulting in higher numbers of medical expences, insurance claims, and deaths of women who, as in times past, will continue to obtain abortions, abeit illegally.

Last thought: What is the financial, moral, and ethical cost of an abortion these days vs the financial, moral, and ethical cost of a condom?

"EVERY YEAR,more unborn children Die from Abortion than Americans died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars 1&2 the Korean, Vietnam, PersianGulf, and Afghanistan/Iraq Wars COMBINED!!!"

Vote McCain - help war deaths catch up!

"The first would be legislative and that would be a stance which reflects the polling data I'm familiar with -- which is supportive of the abortion right, but also of some restrictions on its exercise."

What restrictions do you have in mind?

All those abstinence pledges amongst teenagers these days? Oddly enough they coincide with a huge bump in blow jobs. Monica Lewinski was ahead of her time.

Not! There's no reason to think that this is even remotely true, and good reason to regard it as a particularly foolish urban legend.
Posted by: Solomon on June 10, 2008 at 3:30 PM

I'm pro-choice and still like McCain. My ovaries don't feel threaten by McCain, but my pocket book sure gets nightmare at the thought of Obama been president.
Posted by: coolrepublica on June 10, 2008 at 8:20 PM

As mentioned above, if you're genuinely concerned about your picketbook, you might want to examine the debt and tax burdens imposed by recent Republican and Democratic presidents, and the likely cost of the promises made by candidates McCain and Obama. Or you could simply believe whatever dumb shit you want to...

I find it curious that Kevin Drum takes issue with my column, then quotes three graphs of Steve Benen's also taking issue, then offers a link to Benen's complete thoughts on how wrong Harrop is," but provides no link to the column itself -- or even a quote from it.

You boys only talk to each other?

Anyone interested in what I actually said may go to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/prochoice_democrats_and_john_m.html