NOW Attacks Obama's Record on Abortion

[jackson_dem]

-snip-

A national women's rights group supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) distributed an e-mail yesterday accusing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of being soft on abortion rights, revisiting an eleventh-hour attack that some analysts credited with swaying female voters in New Hampshire.

The e-mail from Rosemary J. Dempsey, president of the Connecticut National Organization for Women, told members that Obama's record during his time in the Illinois Senate included several instances in which he voted "present" instead of yes or no on abortion-related legislation.

The e-mail quotes Bonnie Grabenhofer, the president of Illinois NOW, as saying that "voting present on those bills was a strategy that Illinois NOW did not support," and adding: "We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy. . . . Voting present doesn't provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman's right to choose and these bills are unacceptable."

The Clinton campaign has made the same charge repeatedly over the past year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402980.html?nav=hcmodule

[saltpoint]

1. The individual points notwithstanding, Senator Obama enjoys the vigorous

endorsement of many feminists of all stripes.

Here is unassailably feminist columnist Katha Pollitt's endorsement of Senator Obama:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing?bid=25&pid=279745

[jackson_dem]

4. And Edwards was the favorite of labor

That didn't stop Obamites from calling Edwards a fraud. I personally favor Illinois NOW's position although I can understand what Obama and Planned Parenthood did. I just firmly believe St. Obama's record needs to be questioned. He is not perfect like his supporters think he is. He is flawed and needs to be vetted just like every other candidate running has been.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

6. So are you OK with them endorsing IL AG Lisa Madigan, wo used the same present vote strategy?

[TheWraith]

44. I think what you mean to say is you firmly believe Clinton should win by any means necessary. NT

[tigereye]

42. that was interesting - it mirrors some of my own thinking

thanks for posting.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

Why did they endorse Lisa Madigan then?

http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/02/02/illinois-now-needs-some-help-finding-their-asses-with-two-hands/

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. Why did they endorse Lisa Madigan then?

http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/02/02/illinois-now-needs-some-help-finding-their-asses-with-two-hands/

[jackson_dem]

5. Was she running against an opponent with a 100% pro-choice record?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. Does it matter why she voted present? She voted present. As part of a strategy.

That's wrong, according to IL NOW, whom you said you agreed with in another post.

[jackson_dem]

10. NOW supports pro-choice interests. They have a choice between Hillary and Obama

Hillary has a 100% pro-choice record and has always taken a stand for choice. It is logical that they are supporting her. You have to tell us who Madigan ran against. Did she run against someone with a perfect record on the issue like Hillary?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

14. What difference does that make? She voted present. As part of a strategy. That's wrong.

That makes her soft on the issue. Doesn't matter if her opponent had a 0% record on choice, we obviously can't trust Lisa Madigan with choice! She should have voted "no" on the issue. That's what IL NOW says. They don't HAVE to endorse anyone, you know.

BTW, on matters of choice I'm going to defer to Planned Parenthood and NARAL, both of whom have vigorously defended Obama and criticized Clinton for this. He gets 100% ratings from both organizations and the Clinton campaign is a bunch of lying sacks of shit.

[jackson_dem]

16. Elections are about choices

They are not referendums. If someone is voting on choice they should vote for Hillary. There can be no doubt about her on the issue. Obama has proven he will change his votes on the issue for political reasons. It comes down to trust.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. ROFLMAO!!

:rofl:

Good god you Clintonistas are pathetic.

[jackson_dem]

24. I am not supporting Clinton

[mrreowwr_kittty]

26. coughbullshitcough

[jackson_dem]

27. This is just a smokescreen for me being a closet Hillarite?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4392876

[mrreowwr_kittty]

29. Probably.

Only Clintonistas feign outrage over the present votes. It's a dead giveaway.

[jackson_dem]

31. Edwards is a Clintonista?

:wow:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

33. When he was pulling that shit at the debate he was.

Sorry, I'm not a big Edwards fan. He's always seemed like a bit of a weasel to me.

[jackson_dem]

34. Anyone who questions St. Obama's record is a closet Clintonista?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

35. Yep. nt

[jackson_dem]

36. The Clenis is that powerful?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

38. Yep. nt

[cali]

12. Hate to break this to you, cupcake

but both Obama and Clinton have 100% pro-choice records. And you know that, kumquat.

[jackson_dem]

17. In Washington. Not in Illinois, as NOW noted in the OP

[Nailzberg]

25. Obama did have a 100% record in IL, as per Planned Parenthood and NARAL

NOW is attacking a 100% pro-choice voting record in order to support a female candidate.

[jackson_dem]

28. Illinois NOW does not think he had a 100% pro-choice record

Hillary and Edwards have gotten 100% ratings every year and from every pro-choice interest group. Conversely they always get 0% from pro-life groups. Obama got 50% from an Illinois pro-life group in 2002.

[Nailzberg]

30. Human Cloning Bill was on their legislative priority list for 2002.

It wasn't on Planned Parenthood's.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

47. Good god you know it's getting desperate when they have to go back to 2002 state lege votes! nt

[Renew Deal]

3. NARAL just co-endorsed Obama

This is all BS.

[GodlessBiker]

8. NOW is so old school. Time to turn the page and let new leaders emerge.

I feel like I'm being lectured to by school marms.

[LostinVA]

11. OMG

[Maddy McCall]

15. NOW is still relevant.

Neither your ignorance nor your feelings make NOW irrelevant.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. good lord

isn't it amazing what people are willing to disparage in defense of their candidate?

I've seen Mondale, McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Caroline fucking Kennedy(!) all disparaged because of endorsements. I've seen people defending Paula Jones as a poor little victim. And today they're slamming NOW.

There's a point where support crosses over into fanaticism.

[Maddy McCall]

45. Indeed.

Oh, geez. I had NOT seen the Paula Jones victimhood stuff. I would PUKE.

Tell me that Linda Tripp is not being celebrated somewhere at DU?

[rodeodance]

51. So many are conveniently FORGETTING how NOW stood up for women!!

[tigereye]

43. schoolmarms are smart women -

last time I looked.

NOW represents a lot of power, but so does Code Pink... Seems like there is room for everyone in the tent.

[Maddy McCall]

46. I agree.

:thumbsup:

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. OMG...you little whipper snapper. NOW has been at the forefront of women's issues

since before your sorry ass was born.

SO....you can kiss this schoolmarm's ass!

[rodeodance]

52. you are doing enough lecturing yourself!

[geiger]

9. As a woman, I really am tired of NOW's militancy,

especially on the issue of abortion. years ago, I had a subscription to their magazine and stopped reading it because it was so depressing, so much about abortion and too little about the larger issue of family planning and individual responsibility and education.

[Bread and Circus]

13. and down on the respect ladder you go... but here's a video for you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

[jackson_dem]

18. Chicago NOW

Which city is Obama from?

[Bread and Circus]

21. you are grasping at straws that just don't exist jackson dem, give it a rest.

[Blue-Jay]

22. Is that relevant?

[Barrymores Ghost]

54. Having just watched this video...

...and now knowing that NOW endorsed an Obama colleague Lisa Madigan, who also cast "present" votes on reproductive rights issues in the Illinois Senate, I am, quite honestly, not entirely sure where Clinton supporters are coming from on this issue.

From former Chicago NOW President, Lorna Brett Howard:

I was not the president of Chicago NOW when Senator Obama made the “present” votes. I never said I was. Somehow it was reported that way, but you can review the video blog for yourself at www.youtube.com., type in Lorna Brett Howard. Here are the facts: I was president from 1995 – 1999. Barack Obama was elected to the state senate in 1996. He had a 100 percent voting record on choice all the time he was in office and Chicago Now and Illinois NOW endorsed Barack in all his state senate races, as did Planned Parenthood and NARAL. NOW relied on Pam Sutherland, Illinois Planned Parenthood’s lobbyist, to do all our work in the state legislature. She did a great job and it was because of her strategy we defeated many measure designed to restrict a woman’s right to choose. It was with heavy heart that I first went on the record to defend Obama’s record on choice, being a firm Hillary supporter. When the line of attack did not stop but was escalated in a direct mailer in New Hampshire to pro-choice voters from Hillary’s campaign I stopped being sad and got mad. This is bad for the pro-choice movement. It hurts our reputation and credibility. I stand for choice and truth.

In addition, does it not mean something that National NARAL president Nancy Keenan released a statement saying both Hillary and Barack are both 100 percent pro-choice?

Illinois and New York NOW have done serious damage to their organization’s reputation among serious pro-choice men and women. It is really distressing as a feminist to watch.

Glad to set the record straight.

Lorna Brett Howard


I am feeling solidly comfortable in my decision, at least where they're based on my pro-choice views. Stick another gold star next to Barack's name, if you please. Thanks for the link.


<edited for grammar>

[Blue-Jay]

20. nevermind.

[mckeown1128]

32. Was this the same organization that said that...

Ted Kennedy stabbed women in the back for endorsing Obama. The same organization that said Obama and Edwards were "gangbanging"(their words not mine) Hillary in a debate.

I will stick to the Planned Parenthood and Naral ratings thank you.

[jackson_dem]

39. Weren't those from the NY chapter?

[mckeown1128]

40. Well Hillary supporters need to make up their mind

Last week the NY chapter of NOW was thrown under the bus by the Clinton supporters for their comments. But this week the IL chapter of NOW is a reputable source. :eyes:

[jackson_dem]

41. NY Now supports Hillary

Their credibility on Hillary is not much since they are supporting their home state's candidate. Illinois NOW is a completely different situation. They are opposing their home state candidate, which is unusual. They are among the pro-choice activists who know Barack and his record the best...

[Barrymores Ghost]

55. A response to Bonnie Grabenhofer, Illinois NOW President:

...from Lorna Brett Howard, former Chicago NOW President:

Bonnie is correct. I was not the president of Chicago NOW when Senator Obama made the “present” votes. I never said I was. Somehow it was reported that way, but you can review the video blog for yourself at www.youtube.com., type in Lorna Brett Howard. Here are the facts: I was president from 1995 – 1999. Barack Obama was elected to the state senate in 1996. He had a 100 percent voting record on choice all the time he was in office and Chicago Now and Illinois NOW endorsed Barack in all his state senate races, as did Planned Parenthood and NARAL. NOW relied on Pam Sutherland, Illinois Planned Parenthood’s lobbyist, to do all our work in the state legislature. She did a great job and it was because of her strategy we defeated many measure designed to restrict a woman’s right to choose. It was with heavy heart that I first went on the record to defend Obama’s record on choice, being a firm Hillary supporter. When the line of attack did not stop but was escalated in a direct mailer in New Hampshire to pro-choice voters from Hillary’s campaign I stopped being sad and got mad. This is bad for the pro-choice movement. It hurts our reputation and credibility. I stand for choice and truth.

In addition, does it not mean something that National NARAL president Nancy Keenan released a statement saying both Hillary and Barack are both 100 percent pro-choice?

Illinois and New York NOW have done serious damage to their organization’s reputation among serious pro-choice men and women. It is really distressing as a feminist to watch.

Glad to set the record straight.

Lorna Brett Howard

<edited to include bold-type, which is my own, for emphasis>

[tokenlib]

37. Some segments of NOW are insulting intelligence...

This vote for the woman or you're a traitor to women stuff is insane!!

[mopinko]

49. illinois now's endorsement is FOR SALE!

they endorsed tammy duckworth over christine cegelis in the illinois 6th district primary in '06, even though christine had been ardently prochoice, in her '04 and 06 campaigns, and tammy duckworth refused to take a stand. mind you this was henry hyde's district and the anti-choice votes had kept him in office for nearly 2 decades. why did they endorse tammy? because that was where the money was.

[LadyVT]

50. Thank you for this post, because

it's easy, in this media storm, to ignore how Obama says one thing to one group (and uses various accents), and then it turns out all this "leadership" he's appropriating for himself is just smoke and mirrors. Present = I was here and I DID NOT take a stand.

[nonconformist]

53. Some Obamabot told me the other day that the pro-choice orgs ASKED Obama to only vote "present"

Unreal.