2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDo you stand with NARAL in endorsing Barack Obama in 2008 and Hillary Clinton in 2016?
IMHO, they made the right decision both times.
23 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes | |
8 (35%) |
|
No | |
15 (65%) |
|
1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Good gravy Marie
Whoops--make that eight. Damn
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)sighhh!
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)More sadness
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"The Friend of my enemy, even though we claim to be fighting for the same stuff ..."
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Also a conundrum
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Sorry but that's bullshit.
As I noted downthread, an organization that is supposed to represent everyone who supports their basic positions should not be taking sides in a primary or election in which both candidates are supportive of their positions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Every organization should be free to endorse the person that they believe will best represent their interests / the interests of their constituency.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Now, how does that make any sense at all?
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)though i am sure the author of this thread is trying to imply that passive aggressively. You and all your little friends gasping in shock are being ridiculous!
Why in fucking hell should a person who support Bernie stand with anybody in support of Hillary during the primary when the DEM candidate hasn't been chosen yet?
cali
(114,904 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)The op already posted a thread announcing the endorsement. That's fine. It's a great, if not surprising endorsement? This? It's repugnant.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)"A male using abortion to play games"??
How about a male backing the best candidate for a woman's right to choose?
cali
(114,904 posts)positions. And your silly response to me entirely ignores my.point. btw, Bernie has never used weasel words on so-called pba. Hillary has.
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)or maybe that was a touch down...a home run... in any case, I liked it.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)NARAL doesn't politically speak for Me outside their interests.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)What in the hell kind of response did you THINK would come from this?
TSIAS
(14,689 posts)That doesn't mean I don't stand with NARAL and their support for abortion rights.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)What is the point behind asking questions like this? I don't get it. Sorry.
Response to fredamae (Reply #3)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)-Barack Obama
cali
(114,904 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)I think Bernie is better.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And in all honesty there is only one choice this time. They know it and got it right. Just as most who lean left in this country.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)two candidates have essentially the same positions on their issues.
In a campaign between a pro-choice and anti-choice candidates, it is appropriate.
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)Response to Truprogressive85 (Reply #10)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
cali
(114,904 posts)I've posted many,many times here about it- again, unlike YOU. I strongly support abortion rights. I do not support Hillary. Just ugh to your using this in this way. And Bernie is every bit as strong on abortion rights as Hillary and has never used weasel words about it. She has.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)"Agree to disagree" comes to mind. You are wrong. Hillary has the best record and women's issues ans NARAL has taken notice. I've had abortions myself. Do I need to lay them out in public for my bone fides?
cali
(114,904 posts)When Clinton said that pro-choice and pro-life people could find common ground by trying to reduce the number of abortions through increased access to birth control, it was called "an attempt to move to the center as she contemplates a presidential run i 2008." The Wall Street Journal described her alleged changes in position as a "makeover and move to the center that she's now attempting." NPR saw Clinton spinning in circles: "She is doing what her husband did. Which was not so much move to the center or the right, but figure out a way to bridge the left-wing base of the Democratic Party. And move to the center at the same time."
Yet she was not changing her position on anything. For her entire time in public life, Clinton has been pro-choice and has supported access to birth control. Pointing out that such access would reduce the number of abortions, something anti-abortion forces ought to favor, cannot fairly be described as a shift in any direction.
Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p.134-135 Mar 25, 2008
Consistently uses Dem. Party line, "safe, legal, and rare"
After Senator Hillary Clinton gave a 2005 speech restating her long-held view that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," some pundits accused her of being "transparent" and taking a "poll-tested path," despite the fact that the formulation had been a consistent part of Democratic rhetoric on the issue for over a decade. The speech was cited again and again whenever a journalist or commentator wanted to show that Clinton was "moving to the center," evidence that she was massaging her actual views for political advantage. Yet McCain's varying statements on abortion haven't seemed to diminish his reputation for straight talk.
Snip
Hillary advocates finding common ground with opponents: Mrs. Clinton, in a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supports, firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, Roe v. Wade. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of abortion--particularly members of religious groups--asserting that there was common ground to be found.
Snip
CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. Ive met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course its a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a womans choice.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan Oct 8, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)comical to see them being completely ignored.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)She's certainly not perfect---but she is hands down the best candidate for women.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Jesus.
Edit there it is. Good old Sanders
cali
(114,904 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)On the issues is a great site
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Seems to me he is saying they disagree strongly on one issue, are going to be unable to work together on that issue, but can work together on many others.
What is the problem there?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Hillary did, she also pandered to abortion foes claiming she wanted to find "common ground" with them.
You're right, the op is absolutely exploiting women's rights.
cali
(114,904 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I.E. voting for Hillary Clinton? Or am I missing something.
Bryant
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Sarah Palin is a woman. So is Ann Coulter and Michelle Bachmann. Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, and Marine LePen are all female. Do any at DU feel that simply being female is enough?
Actual policies and positions also matter. A center right politician is still a center right politician no matter the gender.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)to them. Abortion rights is my #1 issue and like others here, I've had one.
Hillary has said she wants abortions to be "rare."
It's none of her damn business how many abortions I, or any other woman, has.
There's no organization that would influence me into supporting her.
cali
(114,904 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)And a man saying that if you don't stand with Hillary's, you don't really support abortion rights. It's disgusting Mcarthyite and the epitome of male privilege
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)to endorse the candidate of their choosing
however, since ALL the dem candidates are strongly prochoice, there really is no loser on this issue
and another reason i feel great about voting sanders
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Try to obscure the facts by tossing in Pres. Obama but it doesn't change anything.
Show me some policy difference on Choice between Hillary and Bernie and we can discuss it. As far as I can tell there is no reason to support Hillary over Bernie based on policies concerning a woman's right to choose.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)what policy difference is there between Hillary and Bernie which makes her worthy of their endorsement and not him?
I could be wrong, but I know of no policy differences concerning a woman's right to choose between the two leading Democratic candidates.
I don't support Hillary for our nomination and I can't agree with anyone who does (on that subject).
If you try to twist this into my being against a woman's right to choose then you are being dishonest. This is simply about Hillary as our nominee.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)You shouldn't be allowed to put "Trust Women" up there. Only Bernie Sanders can do that. Oh wait...
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)That's why I'm with her.
cali
(114,904 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Me too
cali
(114,904 posts)you don't support abortion rights.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)And I don't think it was meant that way. As is so often pointed out, Sanders has an excellent voting record on abortion rights, even though he certainly hasn't done the field work for women Hillary has.
NARAL choose to endorse Hillary.
cali
(114,904 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)Should stay out of primaries. It will make them look foolish if they have to then switch their support to someone else. Yes, if one of the candidates was not pro-choice then it would be something obvious. But if you have 2 solid pro-choice candidates and you will support whichever one wins the nominee, then save your money and your effort for the general election.