Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 18, 2008

OBAMA TAKES ON MCCAIN ON CHOICE.... For reasons that defy reason, a lot of voters are under the mistaken impression that John McCain is pro-choice, or at a minimum, moderate on abortion rights. The Obama campaign is taking steps to educate voters on the subject.

Democrat Barack Obama, who supports abortion rights, is only too happy to remind voters where McCain stands, but he tries to make his case without attracting too much attention. [...]

Obama is calling out McCain in ads that say the GOP nominee takes an ''extreme position on choice'' and ''will make abortion illegal.'' He is spreading his message through low-profile radio ads and campaign mailings, though, hoping to avoid being tagged as too liberal on a woman's right to choose to end a pregnancy. [...]

Obama's radio ad, running in Indiana, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and elsewhere, features nurse practitioner Valerie Baron telling voters: ''John McCain's out of touch with women today. McCain wants to take away our right to choose.''

Glossy fliers with the same messages fill the mailboxes of women in Florida, Virginia and other states.

The radio ad is pretty hard hitting. "Let me tell you: If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, the lives and health of women will be put at risk. That's why this election is so important," the nurse-practitioner says in the radio spot. "John McCain's out of touch with women today. McCain wants to take away our right to choose. That's what women need to understand. That's how high the stakes are." The ad then plays an exchange from "Meet the Press" in which McCain told Tim Russert that he favors "a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions." The ad concludes, "We can't let him take us back."

In recent cycles, it was Republicans hoping to stoke the culture-war fires by tying abortion rights to Democratic candidates, but in this cycle, it seems it's Obama who is quietly taking the offensive on the issue. Given this, the message is not without risk.

But I tend to think it's a good strategic idea for the Democratic ticket anyway. If there are a lot of independent voters and centrist Republican women inclined to consider McCain because they perceive him as a moderate, this is information that may tip the scales in Obama's favor. For that matter, as Noam Scheiber recently noted, "[T]his reminds women tempted by the Palin pick that voting Republican sets back a cause they care about deeply."

Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

... reasons that defy reason ...

Er ...

Posted by: Cervantes on September 18, 2008 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

I think the Republicans were banking on the idea that mothers with teenagers would be able to relate to Palin because of her daughter's situation. But if they manage to think it all the way through, they will realize that they want their teenage daughters to be free to have abortions. I'm talking about swing voters here, of course, not the hardcore religious right. But even some of those folks, when faced with the choice, make what they previously considered to be the wrong one.

Posted by: The Answer Is Green on September 18, 2008 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

The problem is that Palin is even further to the right than McCain on this sort of thing. The combination ticket is firmly out to the right in religious-nutjob land, and people should be reminded of that, repeatedly.

Posted by: Jake on September 18, 2008 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

I think he is OK on this one
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Posted by: John R on September 18, 2008 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

It's also a rare instance of a Democratic candidate being aggressive and enthusiastic about a Democratic position on a sensitive issue, rather than running away from it, so huzzah for that.

Posted by: Chris on September 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

If you are pro-choice, then voting Republican for President is insane. Voting Republican for Senator or congressman is only slightly less so. You might be safe with Governors and mayors.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on September 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe this is, in part, a reaction to the Interview Wolf Blitzer did yesterday with the Baroness de Rothchild - you know , the one who insists Obama is "elitist". She told Wolf that although she is pro choice, people should be reminded that even Bush didn't overturn Roe v Wade. In fact, she insisted the right to choose is right there in the constitution.

Posted by: Danp on September 18, 2008 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

If there's really a tape of him saying Constitutional amendment to ban -- yes, that should be played. I would certainly think that would be an extreme, and quite minority, position.

Posted by: jibeaux on September 18, 2008 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

somehow the point need to be brought up that abortion is often a part of in vitro fertilization - it's called "reduction" because MD's often reduce the number fertilized eggs so that one or two can survive. I bet there are a lot of childless republican couples who won't want that to happen.

Posted by: Coral on September 18, 2008 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

It is also good in that by putting this directly out there it may provide BHO some insulation (that might not be the correct word) on such issues once elected--he ran on the issue (one of many) and the voters put him in office knowing this. Could definitely help block efforts by the crazies when they try and force their will on BHO and the American public throughout a BHO administration.

Posted by: bubba on September 18, 2008 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Infanticide, McA? Good grief, you're a lame troll. Maybe there's some sort of online tutorial program you could do, McUniversity of Phoenix or something...?

Posted by: jibeaux on September 18, 2008 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Kills babies? i heard Obama eats babies for breakfast!

(hey, if you're going to lie, you might as well go all the way with it)

Posted by: Jon B. on September 18, 2008 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Obama votes for bills to kill babies that are already born.

Don't even start demagoguing with this bullshit about a procedure that has been so distorted by the right that nobody even knows what it means anymore.

Shameful.

Posted by: Lucy on September 18, 2008 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

I've never understood how social conservatives can prioritize the rights of the unborn over the rights of the woman carrying that child...

...however, that's not the point here. The point is how to sway voters. Talking about abortion primarily solidifies the base. Therefore, it doesn't help nor hurt Obama.

On the other hand, it could hurt McCain by siphoning off intelligent women voters.

All in all, it's a good tactic.

Posted by: JC on September 18, 2008 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Jon B,

Sure, Obama eats babies. But we shouldn't let that distract us from the important issues in this election. John McCain holds a regular Satanic Mass in which he sacrifices virgins, but I don't hold that against him; we enjoy freedom of religion in this country.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on September 18, 2008 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, McWingnut has returned. I guess his Malaysian boytoy left him and now he's back to bombthrowing WaMo threads for attention.

Posted by: Dustbin of History on September 18, 2008 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Keep in mind that these are directed ads. Women generally listen to different radio stations than men, and women generally support freedom, so running these ads on stations with female listenership should be a no-brainer. It's even more of a no-brainer when you consider that white women, who generally listen to different stations than black or hispanic women, make up a large proportion of swing voters.

I wish that trolls were for freedom, but wishing won't make it so.

Posted by: reino on September 18, 2008 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

I would really like to see some advocate of the view that life begins at conception asked about the policy implications of this position. Such as: Would in vitro fertilization be illegal? Would the government establish a registry of conceptions as there is now a registry of births? Would all women leaving the country be required to take a pregnancy test? If not, how would you prevent laws against abortions from being circumvented by the wealthy who can go abroad to have the procedure?

Posted by: Woody on September 18, 2008 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Silly Woody, laws are for little people!

Posted by: Dustbin of History on September 18, 2008 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

"Obama voted to kill born alive infants" I'm not sure what this means. I guess civilians of other countries who become collateral damage do not count as "born alive". The constant argument against abortion makes absolutely no sense when taken in the context of killing for country. If life begins at conception, does it end at birth? The fundamental question is: What is life and what is its purpose? Why are we? Who are we? Does the concept of God make any difference to the answer to these questions? I trust all who can read this accept the fact of existence. The questions of why and how are what drive all philosophy and science. History/Herstory are just the narrative we have come up with for explaining it all.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

Posted by: st john on September 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Obama voted to kill born alive infants.

Yeah, and ain't it a fucking shame your mom didn't have that choice?

Oh how I love these dickless wonders who think it's not only appropriate to demand his little woman do what she's told, but truly believes he can tell the rest of us how to live. I'm passed the age of needing a choice but if I wasn't I'd give myself an abortion with a coat hanger, film it for YouTube, and auction off the fetus on Ebay.

Come say it to my face bitch. You'll wish you had been aborted.

Posted by: MissMudd on September 18, 2008 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

I know a lot of 'moderate' Democratic women who somehow have acquired the idea that McCain 'isn't as bad' on choice as most Republicans. They are surprised to learn otherwise.

WRT the Palin administration in Wasilla beginning to charge rape victims for the rape kits needed to investigate the crime against them, I finally heard someone offer an at least logical (if not moral) explanation - after all, the few thousand dollars annually these cost the community is a pittance compared to the entire evidence-gathering apparatus of a modern police force, so fiscal conservatism isn't much of an excuse. I had originally thought that the Palin position was to lessen the number of false rape claims (no doubt brought by vindictive women) by making the claimer bear some cost when filing a report, but this makes more sense - apparently it is routine, when gathering rape evidence from a victim, to offer her emergency contraception. Since these drugs prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, they are, to extremists, another form of abotion and are therefore murder.

If this was really her rationale, you have to at least give her points for consistency.

Posted by: Arachnae on September 18, 2008 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

I'm ambivalent on abortion -- though I am foursquare for contraception access and sex education -- but I just wish Obama (and McCain) would come out and say the damn word in their campaign ads, instead of hiding behind mealymouthed euphemisms like "choice" and "pro-life." No one who advocates capital punishment can honestly say they are the latter, just as being anti-abortion doesn't necessarily preclude one from being a progressive if one has such views on economic and other issues.

Posted by: Vincent on September 18, 2008 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

That radio ad is great. Women should know their reproductive rights are at stake.

Posted by: Brojo on September 18, 2008 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

...just as being anti-abortion... -Vincent

Obama is not being 'mealymouthed' when he says he is pro-choice because being pro-choice and anti-abortion are not the same, nor are they antithesis.

Obama is anti-abortion. I think most people are. In fact, I've not ever heard anyone argue that there aren't enough abortions.

But taking away a woman's right to choose is not the way Obama seeks to reduce abortions. He supports the same things you espoused, sex education and access to contraception.

Too bad you can't see the forest for the trees and have made the choice to insult him rather than listen.

Posted by: doubtful on September 18, 2008 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Obama voted to kill born alive infants.

Ah, someone else who's bought into crazy Jill Stanek's delusions. Funny how Stanek was the only one who witnessed fetuses being stashed in storage closets until they died, and that a full state investigation turned up nothing. You'd almost think she made the whole thing up so she could try and get an anti-abortion law passed, wouldn't you?

Did you know that they have restaurants in China that serve human fetuses? Stanek believes it 100 percent. If she'd been one of Terri Schiavo's nurses, she would have been the one claiming she had long conversations with her when no one else was around. She's a fucking lunatic who's trying to make the rest of us do what the voices in her head tell her we should do.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on September 18, 2008 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Obama voted to kill born alive infants.

No, he didn't -- but we're used to you posting nothing but Limbaugh-esque bullshit, McAristotle, and we know that you're probably even stupid enough to believe it.

And just to show how wrong McAristotle is, the Democrats should emphasize that McCain supports overturning not just Roe but Griswold.

Simply put, McCain's position is so extreme that he wants to take away not just a woman's right to choose an abortion, but everyone's right to birth control.

Posted by: Gregory on September 18, 2008 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

If our young people get decent sex education,there will be fewer abortions. What do you REALLY consider worse, kids knowing about sex or someone having an abortion?
To me, the worse crime is bringing a child into this world who in not wanted. That's it.

Posted by: Married to a Conservative on September 18, 2008 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Let's take Sarah Palin at her word that Bristol actually did chose to carry the baby to term and that the choice was not made for her by her mother/parents. My hypothetical question is, if abortion was illegal and Bristol had chosen to end the pregnancy anyways, how many years does Sarah think her daughter should have spent in prison?

Posted by: on September 18, 2008 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Given this, the message is not without risk.

Mmmmm, I don't see it. The majority's firmly in favor of abortion rights. The minority ain't voting for Obama in any case. Everyone knows Obama's pro-choice; the only confusion is among low-info moderates and independents who think McCain's still pro-choice. This ad is for them.

Posted by: shortstop on September 18, 2008 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

"Would all women leaving the country be required to take a pregnancy test?"

Yes - they could be attempting to kidnap a fetus.

Posted by: An Outhouse on September 18, 2008 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

This message needs to get louder.

A lot of pro-choice people have voted for pro-life Republican presidential candidates since 1980 because they figured that they wouldn't really get the laws changed. And perhaps those decisions were rational.

But in 2008, if McCain/Palin win, we'll likely see a 6-3 or 7-2 majority for the Scalia faction on the SCOTUS. I know conventional wisdom says that they'll overturn R v W in a way that will give the decision to the states, and that certainly seems logical, as that would allow the Republicans to milk this wedge issue for many more elections. However, there is no guarantee that this would happen. The Scalia judges are so wacko that they might just rule a fetus is a person under the 14th admendment -- there are hints of this in past rulings.

Furthermore, a Palin presidency could make things really bad. Consider her record with regard to trying to ban abortion in Alaska (before her time as governor), where they were successful until the courts overturned it. Consider that her town billed victims for rape kits, apparently because they didn't like the fact that the kits include emergency contraception. Consider her own position on abortion (only if mother's life is in danger -- not even for health reasons if the health reasons are not life threatening), and her poor, impulsive, Jesus-jargon-laden decision making skills.

I can certainly see her issuing executive orders requiring urine tests of women leaving and entering the US to see if they are pregnant. And I can certainly see a Scalia-majority court ruling in her favor on a Constitutional challenge on that matter.

No, the fundamentalists know that they are within reach of their goals in this election, which is why they are so excited. Anyone who believes, however reluctantly, in pro-choice must vote against McCain/Palin.

Posted by: Monument on September 18, 2008 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Let me make something perfectly clear for any fanatical wingnuts who just don't seem to get it:

If, heaven forbid, my wife were to be raped and impregnated by her attacker, what we decide regarding terminating the pregnancy IS NONE OF YOUR FU**ING BUSINESS, AND YOU DON'T GET TO GO IN A FU**ING VOTING BOOTH AND MAKE THAT DECISION FOR US!!!

John McCain and Sarah Palin feel otherwise. 'Nuff said...

Posted by: Mark B. on September 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

The radio ad is pretty hard hitting. "Let me tell you: If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, the lives and health of women will be put at risk. That's why this election is so important," the nurse-practitioner says in the radio spot.

That's not hard-hitting.

Hard-hitting would emphasize that if McCain is elected, and if your daughter is raped and becomes pregnant, she'll have to bear the child of her assailant.

Posted by: liberal on September 18, 2008 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans vote against sex-ed that corresponds to a DROP in abortions when available, and prefer the RISE in abortions that happened under Republican leadership.

Republicans vote to deny health care for babies that are already born. This is a loser issue for you guys.

Republicans vote for an occupation that is killing babies that are already born, and has already killed about a million people. This is a loser issue for you guys.

Republicans vote to deny health care to millions of Americans, while looting the treasury and borrowing $12B/month to keep Iraqi oil safe for the Chinese lending us the $12B/month. Yeah, that's a winner.

Posted by: tubino on September 18, 2008 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

And if life begins at conception, a child would be an American citizen if she's conceived on American soil!
Therefore all that's necessary to have an anchor baby is one night of magic! (Say, in a deportation facility...)
And what about the aliens themselves? Court suits alleging that, though they were born in Mexico, they were conceived in the US, and are therefore American Citizens!

Posted by: pbg on September 18, 2008 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

I think pounding the abortion issue is *very* effective, because the overwhelming majority of the country is pro-choice. Even the majority of **republicans** are pro-choice. And a lot of people, as has been noted above and as you note in your article Steve, are under the mistaken impression that McCain is not virulently anti-choice. There have been some polls which indicate that when people know McCain is anti-choice, his support drops sharply. And while polls are unscientific and untrustworthy, the correlation is definitely there.

My older sister's life was once, very possibly, saved by an abortion. I haven't needed one myself, thankfully, but I want the option available. Not just for myself and my sister (and my niece when she's old enough), but for all women. Because sometimes that choice is necessary. And because, contrary to the ideas of these extremist anti-choice douche bags, we women are mature and rational adults who can make our own decisions and deal with the consequences.

Posted by: Shade Tail on September 18, 2008 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

"the message is not without risk"

people say this all the time. i can understand why anti-choice people say it -- they're priming the pump to get their anti-choice adherents to jump up and shriek all at once.

the pro-choice position is held by a majority of americans.

the only "risk" i can see is unleashing the lunatics, but why can't we just ignore them?

i heard, once again, a lot of shrieking in the media and on the right that "those mean old democrats aren't going to let an anti-choice person speak at the convention because that person is anti-choice," but the sound of crickets dominated, and can still be heard, around mccain and the republican party refusing to consider otherwise qualified candidates on the basis of their being insufficiently dogmatic on family planning (this is more than just abortion -- the reason palin's adminstration charged rape victims for their rape kits was apparently because the emergency care made RU-486, or some like medication, available to the women).

i say, let the "conservatives" embarrass themselves. let's REALLY talk, long and well, about the entire subject of health care, family planning, abortion and the truly valued life.

Posted by: karen marie on September 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

The word "born" means to come forth from the Womb alive. The person inside the Womb is the same person to be brought forth from the Womb. To be "born" is not the beginning of Life but rather a continuation of Life.

Posted by: Nancy Danielson on September 18, 2008 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

McCain proudly and confidently said to Rick Warren, "Life begins at conception" - that commits him e.g. to be opposed even to contraception methods that prevent uterine attachment (and to the right of master Medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas, who considered "quickening" at about +40 days to be the relevant transition.) Unless of course McShame-flop tries to change his pitch.

Posted by: Neil B on September 18, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Did you think of that one on your own, Nancy, or did Jesus come to you in a vision?

Posted by: MissMudd on September 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

the reason palin's adminstration charged rape victims for their rape kits was apparently because the emergency care made RU-486, or some like medication, available to the women

Sorry, but this is a conflation that drives me absolutely fucking nuts and helps the forced-birth crowd.

Emergency contraception and RU-486 ARE NOT THE SAME THING. AT ALL. They are two completely different things.

RU-486 ends a pregnancy. Emergency contraception prevents ovulation. Emergency contraception CANNOT end a pregnancy that has already occurred.

By refusing emergency contraception to women who have been raped, Palin decided that the rapist's sperm should be allowed to fertilize any eggs that might be released in the following 72 hours and that the woman should not be allowed to try and prevent that egg from being released in the first place. Because apparently preventing an egg from being fertilized is an abortion.

So. No, the kits do not contain an "abortion pill." They contain medication that prevents ovulation so that a pregnancy does not happen afterwards. Sarah Palin thinks that women who have been raped have no right to try and prevent a pregnancy that might result from that rape.

Clear?

Posted by: Mnemosyne on September 18, 2008 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

I've never understood how social conservatives can prioritize the rights of the unborn over the rights of the woman carrying that child...

A tradition of mysogyny going back several thousand years. It was a policy of the Catholic Church (among others) for a long time that no medical procedure could be used that would endanger a fetus even when the woman was miscarrying and was dying in agony and fear before your eyes.

It is of the same nature as the old Western tradition that, in the event of an Indian attack, any white women in your party should be shot with your last bullet to avoid "a fate worse than death." Most of the Amerindian nations didn't hold with rape on the battlefield, so this meant you were killing your own wife or daughter to be sure she never, ever had sex with an inferior race.

Posted by: Berken on September 18, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

I've never understood how social conservatives can prioritize the rights of the unborn over the rights of the woman carrying that child...

A tradition of mysogyny going back several thousand years. It was a policy of the Catholic Church (among others) for a long time that no medical procedure could be used that would endanger a fetus even when the woman was miscarrying and was dying in agony and fear before your eyes.

It is of the same nature as the old Western tradition that, in the event of an Indian attack, any white women in your party should be shot with your last bullet to avoid "a fate worse than death." Most of the Amerindian nations didn't hold with rape on the battlefield, so this meant you were killing your own wife or daughter to be sure she never, ever had sex with an inferior race.

Posted by: Berken on September 18, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

seems like a rather risky strategy to shine a bright light on this issue. there are a lot of voters, eg many catholics, for whom this remains either a difficult issue or who are squarely pro-life / anti-choice. as the post says, this tact is not without risk

Posted by: aidan on September 18, 2008 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Anti-choice is about nothing so much as the subjugation and infantilization of women. Period. Take control of a person's body and you have control of the person.

Posted by: Lori on September 18, 2008 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

seems like a rather risky strategy to shine a bright light on this issue.

Considering that McCain's desire to overturn the decision that established a right to birth control -- to say nothing of the radical anti-choice position he's trying to mislead voters about -- are well outside the mainstream, it seems like your analysis is all wet.

Still, your concern is noted.

Posted by: Gregory on September 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK
Obama votes for bills to kill babies that are already born.
Uh, dumbfuck? Obama was NOT IN THE SENATE YET, when the Authorization to Use Military Force came to a vote. Sheesh. He didn't get a vote on that. Posted by: kenga on September 18, 2008 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

I really don't understand many Republicans, they become rabid at the thought of abortion, yet are just as rabid about progroms that would help young pregnant teens and mothers.They scream about money for welfare but wouldn't do anything to help a mother already over burdened with children, and if my daughter gets raped she will not have a baby conceived this way, I doubt if many conservates would welcome a baby born to their wife,mother, sister, daughter because of rape. I support all life but to me the life of a 2 yr old dying of hunger, disease, abuse,or war is more precious than the life of a 2 mo. old fetus.

Posted by: kat on September 18, 2008 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

I really don't understand many Republicans, they become rabid at the thought of abortion, yet are just as rabid about progroms that would help young pregnant teens and mothers.They scream about money for welfare but wouldn't do anything to help a mother already over burdened with children, and if my daughter gets raped she will not have a baby conceived this way, I doubt if many conservates would welcome a baby born to their wife,mother, sister, daughter because of rape. I support all life but to me the life of a 2 yr old dying of hunger, disease, abuse,or war is more precious than the life of a 2 mo. old fetus.

Posted by: kat on September 18, 2008 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Stop calling these Republican idiots "pro life." We all know they are not. They're anti-choice. They are against women having the choice of when or whether to have sex, how, and with whom. They are against women having their choice of contraceptive methods and medically accurate information to select the best one for themselves. They are against women having their choice of doctors. They are against women having the choice to abort. And as evidenced by the case of Laura Pemberton, who was forced to undergo a c-section she didn't want or need, they are against women having the choice of where and how to give birth to their children.

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/97457/an_open_letter_to_gov._sarah_palin_on_women's_rights/

These people don't care about the sanctity of life. If they did, comprehensive sex ed and free contraception would be available everywhere. Social programs to help low-income women and their families would be easily available. A standard of universal health care would exist.

This isn't about abortion. This isn't about the "sanctity of life." It never was. This is about women, sex, and who gets to be in charge of that sex. This is about being in control. It always has been. Let's not play dumb and pretend as though Republicans give a shit about what happens to women. We all know what the reality is.

Posted by: Keori on September 18, 2008 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK
the only "risk" i can see is unleashing the lunatics
Is that anything like "bring on the clowns"? Posted by: kenga on September 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Time to dust off that copy of The Handmaids Tale ...

Posted by: royalblue_tom on September 18, 2008 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK


It defies reason that "Palin wanted rape victims to pay for their own rape kits" hasn't gotten more play, or isn't in at least a NOW sponsored ad or something.

It's true, and it shows just how far out there the potential VP is.

Posted by: winner on September 18, 2008 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Sounds like a great ad to me. I wonder if he's running it in many states.

Posted by: MarkH on September 18, 2008 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

Time to dust off that copy of The Handmaids Tale ...

Dude. That book was creepy.

Posted by: MissMudd on September 18, 2008 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

McCain has made so many strategic errors in this campaign, and is so wooden in his public speaking, that it seems reasonable to question whether he is actually fully compos mentis. He looks and speaks in a manner reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, just before he stopped doing public speaking. I trust that this question may be regarded as unseemly and perhaps ageist, but isn't it a key question, in view of his demonstrably unqualified veep?

Posted by: Mercercat on September 20, 2008 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly