2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThis comment by Hillary about reproductive rights is very troubling:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html
As it will soon be time to "get behind" our nominee, and since it is likely to be Hillary, and since we all agree that even with comments like this she is still far, far better of a choice than the alternatives; I say it is time to make sure she hears US when we say:
Now, this compromise plays out in SC decisions which means she would be open to a SC justice who would alter Roe.
So instead of whining about not having our candidate, Bernie, as the nominee, if he isnt at the end of the day how about we get behind Hillary and at the same time make her HEAR us about this issue and others.
Unless of course you want a Republican instead who will allow a SC decision reversing Roe entirely? Among other things.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Many of us are not surprised and are voting for Sanders.
What other policy position changes are coming??
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)That is where your voice is by far the loudest, in the primaries.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Have you?
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)The election is over. Bernie should call it quits. We don't need to see more negative posts about our Queen. We'll cross this bridge when we get there. We'll push her to the left.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)instead of trying to change the wrong one.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)and since we all agree that even with comments like this she is still far, far better of a choice than the alternatives
Your view of the alternatives is too restricted. We have spent decades watching the Democratic party march rightward and making excuse after excuse for it because the GOP was marching rightward too and as long as they stayed MORE right we were always voting for the "better" option.
But as long as we do that what do we get? TWO PARTIES ALWAYS MOVING RIGHT and the Democratic party never facing consequences for it.
So the real question is when do you stop allowing yourself to be held hostage to a threat of dire consequences if you don't just cave on your principles and do something about it? And for a lot of people that is this year. The year the Democratic party didn't just sidle more right than we wanted because there were no viable serious alternatives that could run more to the left... but rather made a decision to declare all out war on a truly progressive candidate with massive levels of popular support that polling said could win. To attack Single Payer. To attack the fundamental basis of progressive social safety net and welfare programs as "giving people free stuff". To explicitly favor the Hawk. To explicitly favor Wall St corruption. To compromise BEDROCK ethical principles like reproductive freedom and choice as we see in this OP.
No more. In the short term yes, a GOP presidency would be very painful. But in the long term knowing that we're reaching the point where there are simply no truly liberal political options in America because we keep enabling both parties endless march to the right is even worse. It's the slow death of hope. It's the gradual corruption of our entire society. FFS, look how bad we've let it get already, every year the country thinks "centrist" means halfway between the Democratic Party and the GOP. But every year halfway between the Democrats and the GOP moves further and further and further right. Clinton is center right and people believe the ridiculous notion she's a far left liberal just because she's left of crazy. Sanders is center left and half the country thinks he's a raving communist. And it's only going to continue getting worse if we don't stop it. and we will never stop it by voting for it. Ever.
If Clinton is the nominee progressives need to send a message. They need to walk. Period.
Anything else is just being complicit in the unending rightward decline of the nation.
Avalon Sparks
(2,537 posts)100% agree
synergie
(1,901 posts)She's not stating anything about compromising about a woman's right to her own body. it's pretty far fetched to think that she's going to be open to a justice who would alter Roe, you know this because she's spent decades supporting women's basic human rights AND Roe.
It's also one of her litmus tests, (doesn't make Bernie's only one though, and no one bothered to yell at him that Citizens United as a litmus test fails spectacularly when it comes to ensuring that t woman has a right to her own body, it does nothing actually, NOTHING.)
(http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268174-clinton-i-have-a-bunch-of-litmus-tests-for-supreme-court)
People are fond of taking Hillary out of context and actually ignoring her record, she's not wavering on a woman's right to choose, she was specifically talking about late term abortions, and the hard choices women faced when they ran into health problems, something was wrong with the fetus etc. etc.
The reason Bernie didn't get the PP, NARAL etc, endorsements is because he wasn't as strong on the issue as Hillary has always been. By all means make sure she hears you, but do a little bit of listening yourself.
She doesn't do the soundbytes, she explains things, yes it's long and not a slogan, but the content of her words are well thought out.
Despite the habit around here of pretty much taking everything out of context to attack her every which way, this is not something that she has ever compromised on, and it's not something she will put in jeopardy.
But do make sure Bernie hears you, and every other male politician, who votes dutifully, but leaves it up the women to do all the heavy lifting in the fight against right wing anti-choice nut jobs. THEY need to hear us. at every level of government, from the UAL and ALEC zombies in the state houses, to Washington. They're winning at the local level, because we are not paying attention to what they're doing close to home.
It's not the SC or Roe that's eroding reproductive rights, it's the building codes and the threats to doctors and the admitting privileges, lets make the people who ignore us HEAR us, and lets listen to the people who have been actively fighting this fight all along?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)require altering the way Roe is written? Maybe not, based on what is already happening in state after state.
So you educate me, please...
Here is what I find on Roe
So is she saying she is OK with states applying more restrictions on late term abortions or not?
I am bothered there are any restrictions, at all, ever, as to what a woman can do with her own body.
I have been nothing but fair to both Hillary and Bernie and when I see an issue of theirs I dont like I talk about it, given I plan on supporting our candidate no matter who it is.
and
I have never taken her out of context and I took this from a reliable source, to say the least.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)A hunter walks into the woods with one bullet in his rifle.
There's a deer to the left of him and a wild boar to the right.
So he compromises by shooting in the middle.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...who is a woman (as her supporters never let us forget), who thinks there is still more that can be negotiated on abortion policy with the rabid right wing.
Shame on you, Hillary Clinton. I repeat: SHAME ON YOU, Hillary Clinton. Pandering on this issue, of all the issues you might choose to pander on.