Tell NARAL They're Wrong

When I was a girl my mom and I drove 6 hours from Detroit to Chicago to help lobby for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.

When I moved to the DC area some 24 years ago, I didn't waste any time in getting involved with the progressive causes.  With the national headquarters of so many great groups here in our area, it was easy to volunteer and feel like I was making a difference.  One of those groups was NARAL - then called the National Abortion Rights Action League.

I'd show up every Wednesday evening to hang out in the conference room, go through "hate mail" and visit with friends.  We had a great group of folks - and it was kind of funny to see what some of the anti's sent back in NARAL's pre-paid mailers.  The idea was to weed out addresses from the mailing list so the group wouldn't waste money on them once we id'd them as anti's.  They got pretty creative actually - more than once we'd open the envelope to find a squished frog or something equally gross.  Another time someone sent the envelope back taped to a brick - running up the postage charged to the group.

I also showed up to help with national marches, and was a regular at clinic defenses when we got word that the anti's would try to shut down a clinic - especially on January 22nd, when they turned up in DC for their annual march.  The idea was to keep it open so patients could get in for their appointments - most of whom were there for check-ups, advice re birth control or cancer screenings etc.  So we'd act as escorts or legal observers.  We'd ring the door to the clinic to keep the anti's from gaining control of the entrance and shutting it down.  It got kind of comical at times really - we'd set up a ring and then the anti's would set one up in front of us.  Then we'd block them off so more anti's couldn't get in to add to their ranks.  Layer of us - layer of them - layer of us and so on...  to the point where it looked like a rainbow.

I remember one clinic defense where we'd formed so many rings that ours was eventually out to the edge of the building.  I was right near the corner and facing the outside, and an anti decided to park himself in front of me and started talking at me.

Where could I go?  My arms were linked to other defenders on either side of me - I was stuck.  Thankfully this guy was fairly reasonable and we struck up a conversation.  At one point he said god was anti choice (he didn't use that term btw) and god was never wrong.  So I asked him something he never could answer - and no one's been able to answer since...

If god is never wrong then why did he give us the intellect and curiosity to discover ways to safely terminate a pregnancy?  AND why did he put me on this earth - a pretty smart and PRO-CHOICE woman who's active in defending my reproductive rights?

Crickets.

Things suddenly got nuts and folks began pushing us.  I ended up getting jammed up against the corner of the building by my new buddy - my spine slamming against the bricks - and I ended up on my knees in pain.  Well I guess that's one way to get a "heathen" on her knees right?  So much for compassion and love for all living things.

I don't lay all this out to brag about what I've done to defend my and my daughter's reproductive rights (what little we have left) but to explain why I'm so saddened outraged over NARAL's endorsement of Sen. Obama over Hillary today.  I feel betrayed - big time.

Hillary's record on defending and fighting for our reproductive rights is unparalleled.  She's fought for access to the morning after pill and other contraception for women serving in our military.  She's held up presidential appointments until we got an answer from the FDA on Plan B.  She's gone to bat for us more times than I can count and she isn't done yet.  In January she proposed her new Agenda for Reproductive Health Care, in which she maps out what she hopes to do going forward in fighting for our rights.  She's not just talking the talk guys - she's walking the walk with this one...

"When I'm President, I will appoint judges to our courts who understand that Roe v. Wade isn't just binding legal precedent, it is the touchstone of our reproductive freedom, the embodiment of our most fundamental rights, and no one - no judge, no governor, no Senator, no President - has the right to take it away."

The agenda includes preventing unintended pregnancies by increasing access to honest, accurate sex education, contraception and family planning services, ensuring that private health plans offer the same level of coverage for contraception as they do for other prescription drugs and services, ensuring that women who survive sexual assault have access to emergency contraception upon request. Clinton also calls for providing greater access to reproductive health care services overseas.

WCLA joins other prominent pro-choice organizations endorsing Hillary Clinton for President, including the National Organization for Women PAC, EMILY's List, Women's Campaign Forum, National Women's Political Caucus, Women's Political Committee.

Hillary has been a leading advocate for the right of every woman to make the most personal of life decisions for years. She believes the right to privacy is a fundamental right, and that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Her views on reproductive rights were informed by seeing what happens when the government gets involved in these decisions. As First Lady, Hillary traveled to Romania where, under a Soviet-style dictatorship, the government had controlled every aspect of women's reproductive health by eliminating birth control, sex education and abortion and requiring humiliating government-controlled monthly exams, in order to compel every woman to bear five children and build the Romanian state. Hillary saw the other extreme in China, with its one birth policy, under which women could be sterilized or forced to have an abortion if they got pregnant for a second time. Hillary took those lessons to heart.

In the Senate, she has been an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration's relentless and insidious attempts to undermine Roe and has been on the forefront of the major victories on behalf of the pro-choice community in recent years. In the Senate, Hillary waged a three-year effort, along with Senator Patty Murray, to get the FDA to accept the overwhelming recommendation of the medical community and approve emergency contraception for over-the-counter sales. She also helped craft a winning strategy to put the right wing on the defensive by highlighting their opposition to contraception, a position that is way out of the mainstream in the U.S. Hillary championed the Prevention First Act, which expands access to contraception for women of all income levels, and provides for honest and complete sex education programs. As President, Hillary will be vigilant in ensuring that each woman maintains the right to plan her own family and protect her reproductive health.

This announcement of NARAL's just doesn't make sense.  A friend of mine wrote to her state's NARAL affiliate and she got a note back saying they didn't have any input into this decision.  None was solicited.  The national political PAC made the call on their own - not sure why.  But as a longtime supporter and activist of NARAL's, I feel betrayed.  I really do.  Here we have a supremely capable and qualified woman running for President - a woman who's stood up for our rights for decades here at home and around the world and NARAL decides to back her opponent in this race?

WTF?

Now back when I volunteered for NARAL they were called the National Abortion Rights ACTION League.  Not sure what they hell they're calling themselves now (NARAL ProChoice America?) but given that they're backing a guy who voted PRESENT on key votes re our reproductive rights in the IL legislature it's no wonder they dropped the ACTION bit from their name.  It's all about CYA and wait & see with them - notice they stayed on the sidelines until they figured BO was a sure bet?

Why they couldn't have waited another three weeks to let this primary season play out is a whole other question.

Here's a bit of history on NARAL from Wiki

The group was founded in 1968 by Bernard Nathanson, Larry Lader and Betty Friedan as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. Bernard Nathanson, like Sandra Cano a.k.a. "Mary Doe," is now a vocal pro-life activist. After Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to privacy in reproductive decisions including abortion, it changed its name to National Abortion Rights Action League, then to National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League, and in 2003 dropped the long form in favor of "NARAL Pro-Choice America."

(BTW - when I volunteered at a big NARAL celebration to mark their 20th anniversary, I had the honor of meeting Betty Friedan. I wonder what she'd have to say about today's endorsement).

This wiki article notes that NARAL was one of the many sponsors of the 2004 March for Women's Lives.  Hubby and I took our kids down to this march.  Our son was just 19 months old at the time and rode in the stroller, so hubby turned the stroller into a little float, taping a Catholics for Free Choice poster to the front of it.  (We're not Catholics but hubby grew up in Ireland and I think he liked the idea of sticking it to the priests back home who ruled with a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude).  After just a few hours at the march and in parading down Pennsylvania Avenue, we lost count of the number of folks who stopped our little family to take a picture of the kids with that poster.  Another family for choice.

Now as some of you might recall, NARAL raised more than a little ire when they jumped into the political fray a couple years back, by endorsing a couple Republicans in the 2006 elections.  This was a year we were fighting to retake control of congress and many governorships around the country.  More from Wiki...

NARAL Pro-Choice America and its affiliates have been criticized by some abortion political activists, both for supporting pro-choice Republicans such as Lincoln Chafee and Michael Bloomberg

Now I was blogging on DailyKos back then and there was an absolute uproar over these endorsements.  One diary after another - not to mention multiple front page posts - were put up decrying these endorsements every day, with the diarists declaring that NARAL is dead to me!  Hundreds of comments would follow.  I not only refused to chime in on the side of the condemners - but I actually defended NARAL.  As a former volunteer and long time activist for our reproductive rights, I just wasn't ready to admit that they'd let us down with those endorsements.

Looking back though I see what Markos and the rest of the folks there were saying.  They were fighting (as was I) to help elect enough DEMOCRATS to retake control of one or both houses in Congress.  But thinking back, with the razor thin majority in the Senate, if NARAL had gotten their wish and Chaffee had won, we'd be dealing with a Republican controlled Senate right now.  NARAL didn't have to endorse anyone in those two races - they could have stayed out of them and focused on the many other contests around the country.  

Come to think of it - before that (before Roe) they were known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.  Maybe today's endorsement signals a return to that name eh?  Because if Obama's our nominee you can bet your @ss we'll see McCain in the WH and anti-choice justices nominated / appointed to the Supreme Court and the lower courts.  This will - in effect, wipe out everything we've gained in our reproductive rights since Jan. 22, 1973.  Intended or not, today's endorsement could well lead to the repeal of what few laws are on the books protecting our right to choose.

Mission accomplished!

Hmm.  So yeah - to that Tell NARAL They're Wrong bit noted in the title of tonight's post...

I got an email from someone today and they had a great idea.  She's asking everyone to let NARAL know just how pissed we are over this betrayal (and we DO feel betrayed trust me) by donating the equivalent of a year's membership to NARAL.  So if you're currently a member or were thinking of joining NARAL, send the money to Hillary instead you guys.  Help put a powerful pro-choice candidate in the White House - someone who can and WILL beat John McCain in the general election - and make sure our rights are protected.  Advanced even.

Membership levels are at $35, $50, $75 or $100.

Leadership Circle membership levels are at $100, $250, $500 and $1,000.

If it's done via our HillRaisers account we can track things and maybe update NARAL as to how many of us have walked away from them forever over this betrayal.

So here's the thing - donate and include an extra 44 cents to signify WHY you're doing it.  I'll tally things up pass the info on - let NARAL know what they've lost and maybe let the campaign know why we're supporting Hillary with a donation now.

       
 

After you donate come back and tell us about your history herstory of working to defend our reproductive rights.



Display:


Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 14)

Tell us your story re your work to defend our right to choose.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:25:41 PM EST

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 5)

By the way - you don't wanna see what I replied with when NARAL sent out their little announcement.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:27:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You put a frog in the envelope? (2.00 / 1)




The 4th Amendment: It's not just for dope dealers anymore.
by benmasel on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:09:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who did you mail a frog to in the 70's? (none / 0)

This has the potential to be very entertaining, I think.


by bobdoleisevil on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:15:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who did you mail a frog to in the 70's? (2.00 / 2)

No i wont do that. I'll send them money thanking them for supporting Obama!


by anujtron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:42:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who did you mail a frog to in the 70's? (2.00 / 1)

Me too.  Since I already donate, I'll double it and tell them why.


Unable to rec or rate. But I've got phantom mojos for miles.
by Agent77 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:01:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll take this month's (none / 0)

Obama donation and give it to NARAL to offset some of this silliness.


by bookish on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:52:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 7)

"Help put a powerful pro-choice candidate in the White House - someone who can and WILL beat John McCain in the general election - and make sure our rights are protected.  Advanced even."

So are you arguing that Obama isn't pro-choice alegre?


by Yalin on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 3)

I took her to be arguing that Clinton is "someone who can and WILL beat John McCain in the general election" while Obama is not.

I don't agree, but it isn't an offensive claim to make. I was pretty glad she didn't make the offensive claim you interpreted her as making.


by letterc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:46:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 2)

That's why I'm asking, because there was a time when the Clinton campaign was sending out mailers that stated, falsely, that Obama was in fact anti-choice.

So I'm just making sure more than anything else.


by Yalin on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:47:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.35 / 14)

Well, he sure as hell ain't  "pro-choice."  

From Illinois NOW:

"As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted `present' on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills.  In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass. He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now."


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:07:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 16)

PLANNED FUCKING PARENTHOOD ASKED HIM TO DO THAT.

Please stop lying.  Please, just please stop lying.

Can you stop lying?  Is it in you to stop lying?

Any chance you might stop lying?  Could you?  Maybe?

No?  Still gonna lie?

Okay then.  Just checking.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:10:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.44 / 9)

The National Organization for Women in his home state said this about Obama, and they're telling  the truth. Voting "present" was a cop out.

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose. IL NOW knew that those bills were unacceptable to women. Except for these present votes, Senator Obama's record on choice has been excellent, but he has not taken leadership on the issue at the same level that Hillary has.

Ms. Brett asserts that the strategy to vote "present" was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted "no" with little negative consequence in his district.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:20:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 1)

So, uh, you gonna quote Planned Parenthood from IL or not?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:23:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.66 / 6)

So, uh, you gonna quote Planned Parenthood from IL or not?

So, uh, you gonna defend voting "present" or not?


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:28:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 4)

Sure.  Did the bill pass?  Did his actions hurt anybody?

What about the votes Hillary has missed in the Senate whilst campaigning?

Look, if you want to say that he's perhaps somewhat less zealous on the symbolism than some other politicians?  I might concede that point.

If you infer from those "present" votes a lack of committment on the issue, then you frankly have far more powers of telepathy than I do.

Answer my question.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:30:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.80 / 5)

Voting on issues relating to the reproductive rights of women isn't "symbolism." They can literally be life and death issues, which affirms your appalling ignorance of this issue AND your candidate.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 0)

It is symbolism if the vote of an individual candidate had no fucking effect on the outcome, and he or she knew it at the time.

Seriously, get off your high horse and join the rest of us on the ground.  He isn't out to take away your right to an abortion!

JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN THE THIRD IS.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:39:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.80 / 5)

It is symbolism if the vote of an individual candidate had no fucking effect on the outcome, and he or she knew it at the time.

Right. Just like your guy's speech on Iraq was symbolism and had no fucking effect on the outcome, and he knew it at the time.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:54:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 1)

I'll take that over Hillary's effect on the outcome of Iraq any day.  Seriously, I wish Hillary just made a speech and left it at that.  Instead, she voted to give George Bush the power to go to war, and voted against every amendment which would have restrained that power.

The disingenuousness of your line of attack -- completely ignoring that Barack Obama's "present" strategy was coordinated with the state's planned parenthood is so blatantly transparent its kind of embarrassing.

If Hillary had shown judgment and leadership in 2002, if she had worked with opponents of the war in Iraq to formulate a strategy for preventing it, if she had had the courage to speak out against against it and mean it, maybe she wouldn't have lost this nomination fight.  

And yes, she has.


by Pragmatic Left on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:23:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 1)

/And your candidate's VOTE on Iraq was not symbolic and had a HUGE fucking effect on the outcome and she knew it at the time..

How did Hillary's vote affect the outcome of the AUMF vote? By your logic, her AUMF vote was the very definition of symbolic.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (none / 0)

And for god's sake, STOP IMPUTING the words of Obama supporters to Obama.

I don't think that Senator Clinton believes every retarded thing one of you people post.  I'm not dumb enough to have that kind of logical failure.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:40:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.66 / 6)

Yep... words like "retarded," dumb" and "logical failure" pretty much sum up your arguments.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:04:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (none / 0)

tick, tick, tick, tick, tick,


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:50:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 7)

According to the Illinois Planned Parenthood:

Seven other times, he voted that way as part of a broad strategy devised by abortion rights advocates to counter anti-abortion bills.

Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Mr. Obama was one of the senators with a strong stand for abortion rights whom the organization approached about using the strategy. Ms. Sutherland said the Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes.

Ms. Sutherland said Mr. Obama had initially resisted the strategy because he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures.

"He said, `I'm opposed to this,'" she recalled.

But the organization argued that a present vote would be difficult for Republicans to use in campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts who favored abortion rights.

Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general who was in the Illinois Senate with Mr. Obama from 1998 through 2002, said she and Mr. Obama voted present on the anti-abortion bills.

"It's just plain wrong to imply that voting present reflected a lack of leadership," Ms. Madigan said. "In fact, it was the exact opposite."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/pol itics/20cnd-obama.html?pagewanted=print


by laird on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:51:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.25 / 8)

According to Illinois NOW

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose.

Ms. Brett asserts that the strategy to vote "present" was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted "no" with little negative consequence in his district.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:00:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (none / 0)

Sorry, but NOW lost me earlier in this primary when their NY State chapter excoriated Kennedy for endorsing Obama... publicly with a wink and a nod to Chappaquiddick while they were at it....  It was quid pro quo language and was an awful read...

Sen. Kennedy has been one of the most stalwart supporters of abortion rights.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:47:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.00 / 2)

Stop lying.

He went to them, not the other way around.  Typical Obama always looking to someone else to cover for him.


by bellarose on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:59:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 3)


John McCain
by Mandoliniment on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:28:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.75 / 4)

This lady has a HUGE credibility problem:

Ms. Brett is misleading people and using her very old affiliation with NOW to help distance Senator Obama from his vote of present on key bills and as a platform for her personal criticism of Senator Hillary Clinton.

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate. Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose....

Ms. Brett asserts that the strategy to vote "present" was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted "no" with little negative consequence in his district.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:31:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (none / 0)

There's nothing she says that NOW refutes.

NOW has a bigger credibility problem - they signed off on literature stating that Obama's present votes were anti-choice.  A "present" vote in the Illinois legislature is functionally the same as a no vote.  Yet NOW lied about it.


Unable to rec or rate. But I've got phantom mojos for miles.
by Agent77 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:05:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 1)

No, you have a credibility problem.

Here is a letter from the CEO of Chicago Area Planned Parenthood backing up her statement:

http://ppaurora.blogspot.com/2008/02/set ting-record-straight-illinois-nows.html


by Pragmatic Left on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:28:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tell ALEGRE & IL NOW they are Wrong (2.00 / 4)

Educate yourself on both sides of the story.

http://ppaurora.blogspot.com/2008/02/set ting-record-straight-illinois-nows.html

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/

This has already been debunked, please see the following thread

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/7/23 5444/7593/106#106

You may not agree, but if it were not for these particular present votes, there is a strong likelihood that more legislation that reigns in a woman's right to chose would have passed due to the loss of democrats that this strategy gave cover to in heavy republican districts.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans (who had control of the IL senate) were putting measures out there that had no chance of passing just to play gotcha with democrats in conservative districts.  This was an effort that was orchestrated with the main goal of retaining Republican control and eventually passing some of the measures.

This was also an attempt to divide the electorate and demoralize Democrats.

So when Planned Parenthood came up with this strategy and Obama got on board with it (he is from a safe district, but he could help the afore mentioned Democrats a way to not vote no on issues that would be used against them while insuring that the measures would still not pass since only an affirmative votes will pass legislation).

Well it worked much to the chagrin of IL NOW (Who opposed it, but had prominent people from the organization approved of the method).

The IL senate is now controlled by the Democrats, Obama sat in the committee that held considerations for these types of measures and quashed any such measures from even getting out to the floor for a vote.

For all of this work Obama has a 100% rating with many Pro-Choice groups.

Now you want to tell me that this was a bad thing?

You want to tell me that Obama is not 100% Pro-Choice?

This is an argument that defies reason.

You can object to the method which they employed, but you cannot argue with the results.  This was as clear a victory for the Pro-Choice movement as I have seen in quite some time.  

Why try to besmirch it for the crass political gain of one person when it debases the entire community of people, who for the most part, hold the very same values on the question of a woman's right to chose?


by Why Not on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:04:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually Planned Parenthood didn't ask him (none / 0)

to do that. Obama approached Planned Parenthood and proposed the strategy. This myth that Planned Parenthood approached Obama had been propagating through the internet especially in DailyKos Blog. Yes, however it is true that Planned Parenthood worked with him on the strategy to protect moderate Democrats. However this doesn't explain why he had to vote present. Note Sutherland's last statement "it's also not a 'yes' vote.".

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2007/07/obama-abortion-.html

Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood's national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.

"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,'" said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted.

While Sutherland was happy to give Obama latitude in voting "present," rather than "no," she was quick to note that "it's also not a 'yes' vote."



by louisprandtl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:29:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually Planned Parenthood didn't ask him (2.00 / 2)

If this is true, then even more credit should go to Obama for devising a legislative procedure to help Planned Parenthood by getting a majority for the Democrats in the IL Senate.

I do not presume to tell you that you are not correct about this, but if true it makes his political prowess in defending women's reproductive rights all the more illustrious.


by Why Not on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:17:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll Answer That (2.00 / 1)

No, this poster will not stop lying about and misrepresenting Obama's record.  It's what this poster does.  This poster is either consciously lying or so caught up in intraparty partisanship that s/he cannot overcome his/her cognitive dissonance about Obama and Clinton.


by deminva on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:11:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But SusanHu was saying he was so (2.00 / 2)

pro-choice that he even supported live-birth abortion?

Which is it?


by bobdoleisevil on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:11:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Plus - BO thinks a choice decision... (2.00 / 1)

should be "between a woman (check); her doctor (check), her family (er, maybe the father who raped her?); and her clergy (dooh!  NO!)".  (His answer from a January debate...where he never said, "Yes, I support choice.")

Who's next, the mailman and neighbor next door?

He waffles as usual so no one can tell for sure where he stands.

I prefer to go with what I know.  HILLARY CLINTON FOR POTUS!


by CoyoteCreek on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:11:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Plus - BO thinks a choice decision... (1.80 / 5)

Nailed it:

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass. He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now." -- Illinois N.O.W. President


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:23:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

NOW has been acting (none / 0)

as a Hillary surrogate this election. They are highly partisan .... why else would they attack Ted Kennedy for his Obama endorsement.

Fair minds would take their statements with a grain of salt.


by JoeCoaster on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:32:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 2)

C'mon Clintonistas, you're smarter than this. We've been over this, this was a procedural move to actually support choice.


by MNPundit on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:22:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.00 / 6)

That line is pure bullshit, and you know it.

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:25:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 5)

You are the most intellectually dishonest person on this site.


by Angry White Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:40:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (none / 0)

There's something wrong with that person; I have no clue what, but anybody who behaves that way has some real problems. I had a long back and forth with him or her a few days ago. I kept trying to have a real debate about something, with each of us arguing our points, back and forth, but he (she) just kept telling me that he (she?) was right and I should find the proof to back up his (her) claims myself: "I won't do your homework for you," was the refrain. This was usually followed by some charge that I was ignorant or lazy.
I feel sorry for somebody like that. Life must have done a number on anybody who turns out as bitter and angry as this person seems to be.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:54:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please don't diminish the impact (none / 0)

of the word "intellectual" by using any of its variations in the same breath as mentioning...


by bookish on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (none / 0)

Liar.


by bellarose on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:02:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 1)

Liar!  You know what you are saying is false. I know because I have seen you shown the links over and over and yet you repeat the same lie.  If you have to lie it's because you lost that point in the debate.  Hang it up already.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:47:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 3)

It's not worth it.  KnowVox posts the same stuff over and over and over.  Shows no interest in dialog.  Just, what part of Illinois NOW says something stoopid do you not understand?

It is fascinating, though, to see all those misleading smears posted right after NARAL endorsed BO.  


It's just the beat of time, the beat that must go on
If you've been trying for years, we already heard your song
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:32:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (none / 0)

Noooo... I'm arguing that he can't beat McCain.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:10:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And therefore, (2.00 / 7)

if you are wrong about Clinton winning the nomination, are you open to the possibility that you're wrong about Obama being able to beat McCain?


by Slim Tyranny on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:14:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I do not know if she will answer that... (2.00 / 6)

...but I must say.  Very interesting question.

I have found so much of the "electability" argument (and I learned this the hard way with Kerry) to be wildly subjective.  So much so that I will dismiss anyone who makes that claim because it almost ALWAYS comes from an extremely biased position (and I dare say an indication of the strongest bias when someone resorts to "electability" as their cheif argument)

I'm not saying people aren't entitled to have a bias.  But electability is usually represented as being some objective measurement and it just ISN'T.


by DawnG on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:50:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do not know if she will answer that... (2.00 / 3)

The thing is, electability is by its very nature a product of the actions of the electorate (thats us).  Obama is immensely electable if the Dems stay unified and fired up.  Pessimistic talk about certain failure have the power to become a self fulfilling prophecy.  I've actually seem some people on this (and other forums) argue the following circular chain of thought.

1. Your candidate is unelectable, thus

2. You are betraying the Democrats by supporting him/her, therefor

3. If he/she gets the nomination I will give up on Democrats in disgust, and

4. Stay home or vote for McCain in protest

Weird.  Fortunately, I think these people are a rather small slice of the electorate.


by protothad on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:34:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 3)

well Alegre  your wrong he can beat MCcain

you know why ? because as a democrat you will support him with all the passion and heart you supported Hillary with. If you are a true Hillary supporter you would follow her lead and support Obama with all you got because she will and her whole family will you know How much Hillary loves this country and you will Let Hillary down if you don't support Obama.  

He can beat McCain remember  last debate Hillary said Obama can beat McCain ...do you think she was wrong when she said Obama can beat McCain?


John McCain's pick-up line is, 'Did you know that 150 is the new 130?'"
by wellinformed on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:23:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There is no evidence to that affect. (2.00 / 3)

Both Obama and Clinton are equally able to beat McCain.


by DawnG on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:42:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 1)

The polls say you're wrong, but don't let that stop you.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:07:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (none / 0)

Ok, well I disagree with you there considering he's tied and/or 5-10pts better than McCain, even with a divided democratic party atm.

I think he's going to win going away against McCain in the fall. But I am VERY glad that you're not arguing that Obama isn't pro-choice. We can agree to disagree on who best to beat McCain. I just never want to get into debates over whether Obama is really pro-choice or not.

Thank you :)


by Yalin on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:54:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well you're certainly not helping, by (none / 0)

trying to demean and smear NARAL for endorsing Obama.  You said you refrained comment before when NARAL was endorsing a Republican, but now that they are endorsing a pro-choice Democrat, now you speak up?  Because it hurts your feelings that HRC is not going to be the nominee?  Or rather that you think McCain will beat Obama?

Then why aren't you sending money to Obama?  Why are you not campaigning for Obama?  Why are you sending money to a candidate that has no chance of being a nominee and has helped in the Republican attack against the Democratic Nominee?  

You need to rethink this, by your own words there are serious flaws in the logic


Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:39:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he is not STRONGLY pro-choice (1.25 / 4)

his political cover tactics of voting "present" are enough to establish that fact.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:37:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

anyone who still believes... (none / 0)

This long-refuted talking point either is a troll or needs to take a long, long break from the primary and come back when they're willing to judge votes based upon their effect rather than how spinning them may benefit a particular candidate.


by Casuist on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:31:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 3)

Thanks for sharing this, alegre.


by durendal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Marched in DC with my 10 year old... (2.00 / 2)

daughter and homemade signs (Keep your laws off my body/Against abortion?  Don't have one).  Her picture ended up on the cover of a special section of the Washington Post in glorious full color.

We both have our own copies today - 19 years later.

Rise.  Hillary.  Rise!


by CoyoteCreek on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:08:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Marched in DC with my 10 year old... (2.00 / 1)

Heh - I was at that rally with my own mother.  She drove out from Michigan and helped me hand out NARAL signs for that march.

Do you remember that HUGE mock headstone near the Washington Monument, dedicated to the thousands of women who died because they didn't have a choice????


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:13:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure do - and Whoopie Goldberg (2.00 / 1)

leading the way.  My daughter was in awe!

What a great day.  What a great memory for me and her.
 


by CoyoteCreek on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:18:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Had this as a bumper sticker for years... (2.00 / 3)

Against Abortion?

Don't have one


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:46:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 2)

I was an escort at a clinic for four years.  I had my tires slashed, my windows broken and my life threatened.  I admire Hillary Clinton, but NARAL made a realistic and a brave choice and I have no doubt that Barack Obama will fight for women's rights.  He also has two little girls, remember?


Obama 2008!
by lollydee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:00:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 1)

Nice diary,

I'm not a member of Naral.  I don't think they will care if they write them or not.

However, their endorsement of Obama is sheer idiocy.  The local chapters are not happy and do NOT AGREE.


by bellarose on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:53:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's really funny... (2.00 / 2)

the headline says "Tell NARAL" but the text says "Give money to Hillary."


by Rorgg on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:57:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 25)

How is NARAL wrong?  Are you saying Obama is not Pro-Choice?  He is clearly going to be the nominee.  Why is it ok For Emily's List to endorse Clinton but not for NARAL to endorse Obama?


by Bobby Obama on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:25:54 PM EST

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 11)

It's not okay because Hillary supporters say so.  I was completely offended when Ellen Malcolm said that Hillary is on stage at debates being beat up by a bunch of white men. I'm sorry but last time  I checked Barack was black. EMILY's list is a white woman's organization. Period.


by sweet potato pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.50 / 2)

Yeah, everytime someone talks about the outrageous sexism demonstrated during this primary, some yuk yuk pops up crying racism.

You're not fooling anyone.


by bellarose on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:08:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 1)

She referred to Obama as a white man. Utterly offensive. Yes, Ellen Malcolm is one of those white feminists that didn't give a damn about the issues of minority women. I have absolutely no use for her.


by sweet potato pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:07:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (none / 0)

Wow! So, it appears you subscribe to the notion that if someone has ANY black in them they are only black.

Obama is half white and was raised by whites. In my book that makes him AT LEAST as much white as black.

Considering that it is his MOTHER that is white, which means every cell in his body has the machinery from his white mother, with a little bit of DNA from his black father, in reality he is more white than black - purely from a biological point of view. So, in reality, in many ways he IS a white man.

You do know that it is racists that say that a drop of black blood makes a person black, don't you? If you had grown up in the south, you might know that.


by splashy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:50:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.50 / 10)

First of all - no he's NOT clearly going to be the nominee.  A lot can happen between now and the convention so don't count your eggs before their hatched.

Second of all - he's NOT going to beat McCain so backing Obama makes no sense whatsoever if you're determined to defend choice and protect the courts.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.77 / 9)

You are out to lunch if you think that Barack OBama is not going to be the nominee. I understand that your girl lost and you are devastated but this is just ridiculous.  Talk about white women being selfish because they can't get their way. Get a grip.


by sweet potato pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.00 / 2)

Your remark is ridiculous. Let me paraphrase to show you why:

"You are out to lunch if you think that Hillary Clinton is not going to be the nominee. I understand that your boy lost and you are devastated but this is just ridiculous.  Talk about a black man with a messiah complex being selfish because he can't get his way. Get a grip."


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:13:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (none / 0)

typical w


by sweet potato pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:32:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (1.33 / 3)

Yes, according to Obama I'm just a "typical white person."


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:13:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 2)

Well, according to the rest of us, you're in denial.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:29:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"The rest of us"?????????? (2.00 / 1)

Speak for yourself.  You don't speak for "us"!


by itsadryheat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:55:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 1)

No, according to Obama his grandmother is a "typical white person."


John McCain supports dismantling Social Security
by DesideriusErasmus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (none / 0)


by semiquaver on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:32:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (none / 0)

sorry, accidental pushbutton


by semiquaver on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:32:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They're hatched (2.00 / 8)

A South Bend single-mom marches on Senator Duck Hunter.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:36:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 9)

Actually, the primary is over. And while November is a long way off, Obama has thye edge at this point. If we all pull together, we will beat McCain.


"No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." -Hillary Clinton
by fugazi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:37:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 5)

"The primary is over"?  Which one?

If you're talking about all of them I think you'd better tell the folks in those last 5 states / PR because they're still making calls and knocking on neighbor's doors.

Look you guys have been saying it's over for months and yet Hillary won WV by 41 points last night. If it's so over then why are people turning out in record numbers to tell you you're wrong?


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:42:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 8)

sigh. Yeah ok. Despite the fact that Hillary can't win, there are still a handful of primaries left. I should have used the word "effectively." The primary is effectively over.


"No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." -Hillary Clinton
by fugazi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 4)

You DO understand how all this works - right?

That no one actually VOTES until the convention in August, and that people are free to change their mind between now and then?

Come on guys - I know you're smarter than this.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:14:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 6)

I understand quite well how this works, and Hillary cannot win this primary. I am sorry to be so blunt, but that is a fact. There comes a time when we need to put aside our wishes and accept things as they are.


"No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." -Hillary Clinton
by fugazi on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:23:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you're going to use that argument... (2.00 / 4)

...You have got to acknowledge that that cuts both ways.

Are you sure you want to stick with that argument?

Because IF (and I'm not saying it will) delegates shift from Clinton to Obama I don't want to hear you coming back and complaining about it because you seem perfectly fine with it now.


by DawnG on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:55:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 2)

You DO understand how all this works - right?

That no one actually VOTES until the convention in August, and that people are free to change their mind between now and then?

Wow, so Dennis Kucinich is clearly going to be the nominee.  I know this because he is obviously the most electable and the delegates will surely change their minds by the convention and vote for him there.  Yippee.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:06:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain stealing election from Paul (2.00 / 3)

I agree with alegre that until the convention actually votes, nothing is official.  

Same thing goes for the republican side.  Anyone who refers to McCain as the Republican nominee has to realize that that is not true.  It doesn't matter that McCain has the most pledged delegates garnered through the primaries, because the Republican convention has not occurred yet and the delegates are free to change their mind between now and then.    

I wonder why Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee supporters aren't up in arms for the way McCain goes around acting like he's the nominee even though the delegates haven't even voted yet.  Don't Huckabee and Paul supporters care about democracy?  Why are they letting McCain steal the election when anything can happen between now and the Republican convention?


by ProfessorReo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:23:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (none / 0)

Then why do you consistently refer to McCain as the Republican nominee?, like in this diary:

http://alegre.mydd.com/story/2008/5/12/2 15134/739

It's also not over on the GOP side until the actual convention, right?


by Brannon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:51:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 3)

And your guy got "effectively" trounced last night by a two to one margin. Obama can't close the deal because voters keep rejecting him by HUGE margins.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:16:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 3)

Hillary picked up only 10 delegates in WV. That's the bottom line. She can not win the nomination.


"No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." -Hillary Clinton
by fugazi on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:26:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (2.00 / 7)

WV's turnout was lower than four years ago. No they did not have record turnout. Sorry but those are the facts.


by sweet potato pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:53:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 7)

Also, please explain why Barack Obama will not beat McCain. Have you not seen the polls? He has always polled stronger than Hillary in head to head matchups. Just because Hillary says it doesn't mean it is necessarily true.


by sweet potato pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:37:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong (2.00 / 3)

Ummm... have you noticed those two maps on the front page here?


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL (2.00 / 7)

You are joking right? Please check out Poblano's blog fivethirtyeight.com for unbiased electoral predictions.  

That was a good one though.


by sweet potato pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:48:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (2.00 / 2)

Poblano is now unbiased.   Well, bless his heart.


by Tolstoy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:17:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the maps? (2.00 / 6)

the one where Wisconsin has been labeled an Obama loss in spite of