Women who support McCain are actually asking for government to control their bodies...

I was amazed last night watching Chris Matthews' show on MSNBC to hear a Hillary supporter saying she would be voting for McCain because Obama won the Democratic Primary. I was amazed because anyone who looks at the Old Man's record will see that he is totally against the rights of women to have any personal control over their own lives.

Tu wit: an article by Sarah Blustain in the New Republic called "Life Sentence". Here's a quote:

Sharlene Bozack was public affairs director for Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona between 1989 and 1995. One day, she came to D.C. for PPFA's annual day of lobbying and encountered McCain on the Hill. "I relive it every time I see the man on TV," she told me over the phone from Phoenix. She and Feldt had run into McCain, introduced themselves, and asked if they could speak with him. He agreed, and they got on the train that runs between Capitol buildings. Bozack was talking to him about international contraception access. Suddenly, she recalls, he was no longer calm, cool, and collected. "He turned toward me and put his index finger out and started pounding me in the chest saying, 'You know my position on this,' and 'How dare you ask me about this,' and 'You are just trying to intimidate me.'"

While you may not hear McCain come out and actually say where he stands on issues concerning women's rights, that is, as Blustain says, so as"not to alienate the Clinton middle--and perhaps in order to keep his foot out of his mouth--McCain has not voluntarily spoken on the campaign trail about many issues dear to social conservatives." And, of course, his tendency to put his foot in his mouth has been more than evident in other areas such as foreign policy and economics.

What he has done, however, is create a 48-member "Justice Advisory Committee" to consider which judges would be nominated under a McCain Presidency. Blustain again:

That committee features a host of legal minds from the Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 administrations. Its headline names include senators Sam Brownback, Jon Kyl, and Trent Lott, all of whom have thoroughly pro-life pedigrees. Other members include William Barr, who wrote a Department of Justice opinion in 1992 opposing the Freedom of Choice Act on both anti-abortion and federalist grounds; Charles Cooper, who under Reagan headed the Office of Legal Counsel, where he helped draft regulations that would prevent family-planning clinics that take federal funds from providing abortion counseling; Charles Fried, solicitor general under Reagan, who helped write a lengthy administration brief in Thornburgh v. ACOG that made the case for overturning Roe on anti-abortion and states-rights grounds; and Thomas Merrill, who was U.S. deputy solicitor general and co-author of the Reagan administration's amicus brief in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services asking the Court to overturn Roe. No member of the committee who has been active on reproductive health issues represents a pro-choice or even a moderately pro-life position.

If the Hillary supporters who are saying they are not voting for Obama (now at about 23%, apparently) vote for McCain they are actually asking to overturn strides made by many women's organizations over the last 4 decades... certainly not in their own interest and, overall, a self-destructive stance.

McCain is uncompromisingly pro-life... a zealot. He will not listen to women or their representative organizations in his desire to repeal Roe v. Wade or in his campaign to end abortion for ANY reason.

I believe that Hillary realizes that the situation is, at the least, dangerous to the Democratic Party. How she (and Bill) will handle this when speaking to Clinton supporters during the Convention will be closely watched.

Under The LobsterScope

Tags: abortion, Hillary, mccain, obama, Pro-Choice, pro-life (all tags)




She did not say she was voting for McCain--I watched the same show.  She said she would NOT vote for Obama-like plenty of women I know plus a lot of men too.

by handsomegent 2008-08-22 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually...


Then, you are, by the math, only HALF helping elect the guy with one of the most abysmal records on women's issues EVER get in the whitehouse.

Yup, Feminism is now defined as strictly for ONE Person.

Cognative Dissonance mutch?

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-22 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually...

Don't understand the English language much.  The diarist said that the woman referenced on the show said she would be voting for McCain--she said no such thing.  She said she wouldn't be voting for Obama but like a lot of us could possibly reconsider if HRC is on the ticket.  I taped the show, so get your facts straight much.. By the by did you notice on Olbermannobama's show on Wed night he NEVER mentioned his own network's poll indicating that the unpopular, polarizing Hillary would beat McCain by 6 while Saint Barack only by 3-Olbermanobama never bothered to mention that stunning bit of news (Abrams LEAD with it).

by handsomegent 2008-08-22 07:04AM | 0 recs
Because it's irrelevant

Why would Olbermann have that on his show?  A) it's not, and will not be, relevant since Obama is the nominee, and B) the rightwingers haven't attacked Clinton even once since February; their powder on her is completely dry.

by Dracomicron 2008-08-22 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Because it's irrelevant

Because it's arelevent, STUNNING, piece of news thatb the one that the talking heads are so discounting is the one who actually has a BETTER chance of beating the Republican nominee. When I brought this up before via Rasmussen survey which showed a similar result I was discounted, now what do you've got to say? The fafct of the matter is that two polls indicate that HRC would be a stronger GE candidate than the nomnee would be. I find that rather incredible and very newsworthy--of course if Olberman were a "journalist" instead of an Obama stooge-he might have too.

by handsomegent 2008-08-22 07:41AM | 0 recs
Did you read what you responded to?

Just because two polls confirm the same irrelevant phoenominon does not mean that the phoenominon becomes relevant.

It's not that the polls referenced are outliers or freak occurances or abnomalities, it's because they're reporting on something that is essentially meaningless.

If McCain and the right wingers had not been attacking Obama, he'd be pretty far ahead, too. If you hadn't noticed, that's pretty much why McCain blew off his promise not to go negative: he was getting toasted by 100 electoral votes in many simulations.

Clinton had a very gracious exit from the campaign, and there's been almost zero news on her to affect her numbers since.  If she were the nominee, I'd be willing to bet that her upcoming campaign finance fraud trial would be on the front page of every newspaper for the next two months.

by Dracomicron 2008-08-22 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Because it's irrelevant

And C, another poll taken in the same period had it the same difference with JM for both HRC and BHO. www.pollingreport.com. PS 3-5% is considered standard MOE for almost all polls

by Dog Chains 2008-08-22 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually...

I thought you guys were boycotting MSNBC? I guess they're only legit when it serves your purposes.

by venician 2008-08-22 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually...

handsomegent, you are correct in many ways. I love when people paraphrase, but the media either are terrible at it or are just plain ole' spinning.

These slighted interpretations are what doomed Hillary during the primaries. I remembered then and NOW. What a difference several months can make? Yeah, right--it's absolutely nothing.

by Check077 2008-08-22 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually...

How pathetic that your hurt feelings are more important then the welfare of the United States of America. Do you teach a course in selfishness and how to take your marbles and run, or are you trying to keep your amateur status?

by venician 2008-08-22 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually...

God, you're so witty.  Let me put it to you straight. A huge population of Clinton voters will never vote for Obama-and VISA VERSA I might add. Futhermore, Ye Ole Inspiring One could have settled this feuds a long time ago by immediately offering the second spot to her. Instead he let all of this fester for more than 2 months.

by handsomegent 2008-08-22 07:07AM | 0 recs
So you are putting your pettiness

over your country.  You, sir, are no Patriot.  

by ttjackson 2008-08-22 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

You call it pettiness, I call it principle. I have explained many times here (and don't worry I won't be posting afetr Monday) that to vote for Obama is to countenance the treatment by the Obama loving media that Hillary got, in particular during the first debates and her treatment in late May and June.  No MAN would have gotten the disrespect from the Obama fans (Cafferty, Matthews, Shuster, DeFrank, Olbermann, Mitchell, Moss) that she got.

by handsomegent 2008-08-22 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

Please tell me you're serious about Monday...

by Dog Chains 2008-08-22 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

Well, maybe Tuesday.

by handsomegent 2008-08-25 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

It might be Tuesday.  I'll start my raindance after Tuesday to have it rain on Thursday night.

by handsomegent 2008-08-25 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

Do you vote for the media or for the candidate. Had Hillary taken the primary, I certainly would have voted for her to defeat McCain (and I woud NOT have insisted on Obama as VP).

To not vote for the Democrat because Hillary lost the primary IS petty if that is the reason.

by btchakir 2008-08-22 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

That's easy for you to say, since you're on the winning side. It's not petty in my book to stand for principle and even to vote against my own self interests.

by handsomegent 2008-08-25 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

Do you vote for the media or for the candidate? Had Hillary taken the primary, I certainly would have voted for her to defeat McCain (and I woud NOT have insisted on Obama as VP).

To not vote for the Democrat because Hillary lost the primary IS petty if that is the reason.

by btchakir 2008-08-22 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

So, your going to punish Obama for what the media supposedly did and vote for a right-wing, warmongering, anti-choice, anti-gay, corporate suck up, pandering candidate?

Grow the fuck up.

by TheUnknown285 2008-08-22 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

I would not looking at voting as punishing anyone. When I go into the polls via polling or absentee ballot, I'll vote for the better candidate. I can't say that Obama is one of my choices...

by Check077 2008-08-22 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

So, you're going to hand the election to McCain who's policies will be contradictory to anything Hillary would do?

by TheUnknown285 2008-08-22 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

And you go fuck yourself.

by handsomegent 2008-08-25 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

So you penalize the candidate for how the Press treats his opponent. Okay...

Have a nice life...

by xodus1914 2008-08-22 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

Thanks, I will--school is starting up this week so I will have a lot of things to do to occupy my time.

by handsomegent 2008-08-25 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are putting your pettiness

I didn't know Obama had so much control over the media that he could FORCE them to mistreat Hillary.

by venician 2008-08-22 08:01AM | 0 recs
while i dont agree with whoever you

are arguing with...

Isnt voting in itself Patriotic?

Isnt lambasting someone for who they vote for Un-patriotic.

Oh the Irony!

by sepulvedaj3 2008-08-22 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: while i dont agree with whoever you

Isn't the welfare of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA too important to put it's fate back in the hands of the Repugs?  How you imply that lambasting someone for how they vote, unpatriotic is quite a stretch, even for an avowed Obama hater.

by venician 2008-08-22 08:05AM | 0 recs
it isnt any

worse than calling someone unpatriotic for how they vote.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-08-22 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually...

What hege population? You guys couldn't even fill the Cheese Cake Factory.

by venician 2008-08-22 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually...

Check out the latest polls, you're wrong.

by handsomegent 2008-08-25 07:29AM | 0 recs
I guess it depends

on what "is," is.

No, she just implied it.

by IowaMike 2008-08-22 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess it depends

She never said she was voting for McCcain--she could stay home, or vote third party, or write in HRC.

by handsomegent 2008-08-22 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess it depends

you say tomato, I say...

It still helps McSame get elected.

by IowaMike 2008-08-22 07:20AM | 0 recs

this is a simple-minded offensive diary. it is possible that a woman may have to weigh multiple positions of the 2 candidates and may chose McCain despite his choice position. that doesn't mean she WANTS government to control her body. any given candidate position may be a deal-breaker for a particular person, but to project that onto every voter is just offensive.

by swissffun 2008-08-22 07:18AM | 0 recs
It does mean that those women

are willing to have the government control their bodies as a tradeoff for whatever issues they think McCain is better on.

by ttjackson 2008-08-22 07:21AM | 0 recs
That's pretty spooky

I mean, what issues is McCain better on for the average woman?  Re-instating the draft?

by Dracomicron 2008-08-22 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: That's pretty spooky

How dare you ask that question, or ask on what issues JM and HRC even agree on, those are out of bounds, POD!!!

by Dog Chains 2008-08-22 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: offensive

Vote counts don't give you that kind of nuance... just like vote counts won't tell you how many of McCain's votes are from petulant whiny children PUMAs casting protest votes, or from Christian Rightists who want to ban abortion, or from Club for Growthers who don't give a damn about it.

Vote counts tell you only one thing: how many people voted for a certain candidate.  And you can be damned sure that if McCain wins, he'll take every single one of those votes as a full-throated endorsement for his insane right-wing anti-woman plans and put them in action.

by mistersite 2008-08-22 08:07AM | 0 recs
Regardless of intention...

if the effect is to give the government control over reproductive rights, it is a deal breaker for intelligent people.

by tonedevil 2008-08-22 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: offensive

Besides, Supreme Court Justice Antonia Scalia said that Abortion is settled law and that is with more conservatives on the bench. The only thing that is stopping them is bringing it up and a 5-4 Supreme Court decision.

by Check077 2008-08-22 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: offensive

If you believe Scalia would not vote to overturn Roe, I have some swampland in Florida that you might consider a great buy....

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-22 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: offensive

I did not say that he would not vote against it. However, if the Republicans and Dr. Dobbs (Focus on the Family) give the religious right what they want, then the campaign funds would drastically be decreased, since it's one of the few remaining nuggets that is holding them to the Republican party.

Once Abortion is settled and compulsory school prayer, then, the religious right may not have a great deal of a reason to stay with just one party. They'll disband to organize into smaller pockets and--more likely-vote for whomever tickles their fancy, since Barack Obama has decided to flirt and charm his way to the White House with this constituency. It'll be hard to tell what's left of the right--or should I say determine which is my left and...which is...my right.

From that point, we all will be subjugated to fumbling over words to answer "should we have rights" or "who should have them" or "what is a right"--similar to the response that Barack Obama gave at the SaddleBack Church to the question,"where does life began."  

by Check077 2008-08-22 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: offensive

[Correction]:"where does life [begin.]"  

by Check077 2008-08-22 02:26PM | 0 recs
Women who support McCain

I think a lot of women will probably vote "Present" in November.

by hwc 2008-08-22 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Women who support McCain

I think alot of women aren't "present".

by venician 2008-08-22 08:48AM | 0 recs
Have you ever consdered...

a career in comedy writing?  You probably shouldn't.

by tonedevil 2008-08-22 08:54AM | 0 recs
Obama's Heart Campaign is not winning over voters

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Bill Clinton

Yes, that's the point. Obama targeted the hearts of Many Liberals and African American.

But the head will rule the general, that's why Hillary was/is our best choice...

Obama better go make "Hope and Change" more specific immediately...

by Check077 2008-08-22 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: That doesn't make any sense

Minus some grammatical errors, what do you mean it does not make sense?

by Check077 2008-08-22 02:28PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads