NOW is flat out lying. For the truth, see

The article says "It is true he voted present several times between 1997 and 2001. But it was part of a strategy designed by Planned Parenthood. Republicans in the Illinois Senate had repeatedly tried to pass bills restricting abortion. This put Democrats in a difficult position. They wanted to vote against the bills, but worried they would be smeared by Republican opponents for opposing legislation with names like "The Born Alive Infant Protection Act." So Obama and a group of Democrats and moderate Republicans cut a deal with Planned Parenthood. The politicians would vote present as a bloc. The bills wouldn't get enough votes, and the pols would have political cover. Everybody would win.

Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood, tells NEWSWEEK that the ploy was her idea: "Senator Obama was always a no vote in committee, but we had other Democrats, and a couple of Republicans, who were tired of having mailers sent out against them." Sutherland says Obama could have voted no without suffering any negative fallout, since he came from a very liberal Chicago district. But, she says, his participation in the deal helped give cover to his colleagues."

Lorna Howard, former president of NOW, a true Women's rights activist, and enthusiastic Hillary supporter worked on the Hillary campaign. She started to notice some very dirty tactics in both IA and NH. She quit in protest of the obvious swift-boating of a great Women's rights advocate in the senate.
Hear what she has to say. s

Obama is at the forefront on a Woman's right to choose. See his speech to planned parenthood in July. vM

"The recent decisions handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States. The court presumes that a women's health is best protected by the court, not by doctors or by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong! Some people argue that the ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure. That is is not part of a concerted effort to steadily roll back the hard won rights of American women. That is also wrong!"

My typing doesnt do it justice. Please see the video vM

We want someone who will stand up for our rights. Not use it as a political wedge against someone who is fighting the Women's right with us.

Say no to dirty email by the Clinton Campaign. Women's rights should never be an attack tool.

Tags: Hillary, NOW, obama, prochoice (all tags)



Chicago pols never lie right ... they are clean

Gimme a break.

Obama also used the excuse that he pressed the wrong button to change in vote in the records, after the fact.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-05 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Chicago pols never lie right ... they are clea

Clinton thought a bill titled "Resolution to Use Force in Iraq" was about diplomacy and inspectors. Was she not paying attention to the most important vote in the last 50 years?

by JoeCoaster 2008-02-05 11:11AM | 0 recs
Obama thought Tony Rezko was a decent guy

... see we can post nonsense back and forth all day.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-05 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Chicago pols never lie right ... they are clea

What's this got to do with Obama being caught out in a lie. Zippo. Address the issue don't change the subject.

by ottovbvs 2008-02-05 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Chicago pols never lie right ... they are clea

See my diary entry

If I knew then what I know now...

Hillary knew a lot more than she lets on

by mageduley 2008-02-05 12:18PM | 0 recs
If he's such a champion of pro-choice... do you explain his answer to a recent question (do you support a women's right to choose):  (he said)

"I believe abortion is between a women, her doctor and her clergy."  

He never answered the question, but he sure pandered by including two more people in this intensely important, difficult and personal women's decision.

by Shazone 2008-02-05 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: If he's such a champion of pro-choice...

What do you mean? His answer obviously entails such a right to choose. Notice that he doesn't include the government as participant in the decision. It is a private choice.

He was just framing it in a way that will seem fair to those who tend to oppose the act of abortion. For obvious reasons, he didn't say, "Yes, I believe women have the right to kill the fetus inside their bodies." Language is important here.

by DPW 2008-02-05 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: If he's such a champion of pro-choice...

Wrong. That's complete pandering to the religious right. Otherwise, why would the "clergy" be in there at all?

People who are truly pro-choice say "it's the woman's decision" or "it's between a woman and her doctor" (because you do need a doctor to perform the procedure). To imply that a woman needs to consult with clergy to control her own body is not a pro-choice position and it's offensive to non-religious people.

by LakersFan 2008-02-05 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: If he's such a champion of pro-choice...

Sometimes it seems like the only thing people can find fault with, as it concerns Obama, is his fucking word choice.

Whatever. The inclusion of clergy isn't just intended to pacify christians. The problem with your suggested response--"it's between a woman and her doctor"--is that it doesn't reflect the moral signficance of the decision. There is far more reason to include moral counselors (such as clergy) in the decision than medical professionals (the surgical risk isn't what makes abortion controversial).

One of the many problems with how we've handled the abortion argument is our failure to acknowledge that there are genuine moral issues involved. If it is true that a fetus is a person, then killing it is <i)prima facie</i)>wrong (I think it may still be justified, however, for reasons set forth in David Boonin's "A Defense of Abortion"). Yet, too often we just offer lame retorts like "it's a woman's body," which completely ignores the issue.

By including clergy, Obama recognizes the moral significance of the decision. This doesn't concede the validity of claims that a fetus is a person. But, it does respect the possibility that reasonable people may think so. The liberal position is that the case for personhood depends upon doctrines that aren't publicly justifiable. As a result, that position isn't enforceable. However, there is a liberal tradition of respecting the plurality of comprehensive moral doctrines that people hold.

by DPW 2008-02-05 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: If he's such a champion of pro-choice...

A person who is truly pro-choice does not impose their own moral values on women. Your insistence that we must address this as a moral issue makes you anti-choice. This is a medical decision and it should be solely up to a woman and her doctor.

I don't hear anyone suggesting that men seek guidance from clergy before obtaining Viagra or getting a vasectomy. A woman's choice about her body and reproductive organs is no different.

by LakersFan 2008-02-05 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: If he's such a champion of pro-choice...

It think it is important to look at it in his context. Most progressives shy away from religion (as does hillary) Maybe this will shed some light on your questions. He is running for the president of the united states and has to represent all people.

This is kind of long, but well worth the watch /bcpid463869411/bctid416343938

by mageduley 2008-02-05 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: If he's such a champion of pro-choice...

I reject every explanation for his inclusion of the clergy.  AND, he never said he supported a women's right to choose.

If he is/was pandering, wasn't his present votes the same type of pandering?

I don't trust him with women's rights.  

by Shazone 2008-02-05 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: If he's such a champion of pro-choice...

Ok it's fine for Obama to triangulate because he's running to be president of all the people but if Clinton does it she's a dirtball. You people are totally hypocritical. So much for the politics of hope.  

by ottovbvs 2008-02-05 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: If he's such a champion of pro-choice...

Triangulation is having a belief in one thing, but trying to pander to an opposing viewpoint just to get votes.

If you stand on principle, you can make your stand, but understanding the other sides of the argument is key.

The reason we have such dirty politics is each side tries do demonize the other.

But we are one people and one nation with varying different views. It makes a big difference when someone says "I hear where your are coming from, but I believe that this is the best way to go".

Obama talks AND LISTENS. And has the internal compass of what is right and wrong, something that the Clintons (both of them) seem to be seriously lacking in this campaign.

Again I refer you to his speech on religion and politics. Watch it all the way through, take notes on all the things you find wrong with it. /bcpid463869411/bctid416343938

by mageduley 2008-02-05 12:28PM | 0 recs
Nope, he didn't say he supported....

...a women's right to choose (e.g., state his "principle").  He triangulated.  Here are his words!!!  That's called big time pander and I reject it.

"I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions, in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy, and I think that's where most Americans are."
-- Democratic debate, April 26, 2007

by Shazone 2008-02-05 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Nope, he didn't say he supported....

"And I trust women to make these decisions, in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy"

I think your extreme parsing of this phrase is disingenuous.

The plain understanding of this sentence is how most non-biased people would take it.

I have had more than a few friends who have decided to end their pregnancies. It is their choice and they are glad to have it. Not many women think it is an easy decision. Obama is showing his understanding of the difficult decision that it. Many women do have concerns regarding their families, and some also grapple spiritually with the decision. But the OVERWHELMING meaning of the statement is not how they came to the decision, but their RIGHT TO MAKE THE DECISION.

by mageduley 2008-02-05 02:45PM | 0 recs

But...the contested districts did not want it too be so obvious so planned parenthood asked unquestioned pro-choice supporters to also vote present.

Unquestioned until Clinton saw a chance for lies and distortion. Which party likes using Wedge Issues to divide people? Oh yeah! Republicans. Maybe Clinton has Stockholm Syndrome?  

by JoeCoaster 2008-02-05 11:07AM | 0 recs

   A response to Bonnie Grabenhofer, Illinois NOW President, from Lorna Brett Howard:

   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, 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 rna-brett-howard-responds/

by mageduley 2008-02-05 11:36AM | 0 recs

Obama ducked both the MOVEON vote and the Kyle/Lieberman vote- there's a pattern here- as Hillary rightfully said, he doesn't want to take responsibility for votes- he's not a leader- I'm sure Hillary wasn't crazy about the MOVEON and K/L vote either, but she took a stand even though it could hurt her politically.  Obama is a panderer, not a leader.

by reasonwarrior 2008-02-05 11:19AM | 0 recs

Please see above comment responses where Lorna responds to the "was she serving at the time the votes were cast."

And OH by the way, I can anticipate this coming already.

Yes she was a TRUE Hillary supporter! She held a huge fund raiser for her.

Check out the society pages on the event ce/2005/clinton.asp

by mageduley 2008-02-05 11:41AM | 0 recs

So the fact that she wasn't president of NOW in 2000 makes her opinion invalid? Only presidents of NOW from 2000 get to be listened to? I don't understand what that has to do with it.

by dantes 2008-02-05 12:02PM | 0 recs

The Moveon vote was a sham. Hillary is so AFRAID of the republicans it is not even funny.

That petty crap is exactly what Obama is against.

by mageduley 2008-02-05 12:04PM | 0 recs
Just explain to me

How on earth having a black liberal vote the same way as they did would provide cover to lawmakers in conservative or swing districts, and I'll figuratively give you a nice fruit basket.

by Trickster 2008-02-05 12:36PM | 0 recs

When I see posts and comments like it really doesn't make any sense.  This campaign is not about hating the other candidate.  It's about finding a Democratic Nominee for president.  I admit not being excited about either candidate based on the performance of the Democratic Congress.  I also don't care how Obama voted in Illinois only what he did as a Senator.  Hillary is lying, how unusual to have this in a presidential campaign.  Well Obama lied about Hillary's health care plan.  Concentrate on telling people why they should vote for your candidate instead of whining about who's lying!

by orionwest 2008-02-05 01:52PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads