![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tikieraIf Obama wins the nomination, I will be once again voting against a candidate, rather than for one.
Obama gives one hell of a speech. But in debates I have trouble telling exactly what his views are. And he's too moderate for me. He wants to leave the gay marriage situation at the state level (though he does want to revoke the DoMA) -
"But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."
I don't want this decided at the state level.
And I no longer trust him regarding choice:
"The issue of abortion, I don’t think, has gone away. People think about it a lot, obviously you do and you feel impassioned. I think that the American people struggle with two principles: There’s the principle that a fetus is not just an appendage, it’s potential life. I think people recognize that there’s a moral element to that. They also believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves and there is a privacy element to making those decisions."
Some control. Some control.
I don't trust to him help end the slow erosion of abortion rights. I think he will make concessions here and there, and that he doesn't care enough about this issue that I can trust him to keep our best interests at heart.
If Roe vs. Wade dies with a whimper instead of a bang, it's still dead.
I was hoping for a election where I was proud to cast my vote for my candidate, rather casting my vote in fear of what the next four years could bring.
I am watching the arguments on my feminist blog debating not voting for Obama - staying home, voting for a third party candidate - and I have always come down on the side of doing less harm with your vote - if you are pro-choice, not voting for the candidate that will nonimate pro-choice judges is stupid. (And henceforth for the other issues - normally one candidate is more moderate than the other).
But I am sick and tired of it. I am sick and tired of voting in fear instead of pride. I am sick and tired of democrat candidates hating to be called liberals.
One of the articles that quoted Obama at the debates shown him saying over and over again "It's not liberal to want (universal healthcare, etc).
Damn it, is liberal to want universal healthcare. It is liberal to advocate birth control sex ed rather than just telling kids to not have sex.
There is nothing wrong with being liberal.
And a democratic candidate that feels that he need to not be a liberal, is a candidate that I don't want to vote for.
I don't want to see this country get worse. But maybe if the people who don't consider it shameful to be called liberal stay home or vote third party we might eventually get a candidate who doesn't think being a liberal is shameful.
Obama gives one hell of a speech. But in debates I have trouble telling exactly what his views are. And he's too moderate for me. He wants to leave the gay marriage situation at the state level (though he does want to revoke the DoMA) -
"But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."
I don't want this decided at the state level.
And I no longer trust him regarding choice:
"The issue of abortion, I don’t think, has gone away. People think about it a lot, obviously you do and you feel impassioned. I think that the American people struggle with two principles: There’s the principle that a fetus is not just an appendage, it’s potential life. I think people recognize that there’s a moral element to that. They also believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves and there is a privacy element to making those decisions."
Some control. Some control.
I don't trust to him help end the slow erosion of abortion rights. I think he will make concessions here and there, and that he doesn't care enough about this issue that I can trust him to keep our best interests at heart.
If Roe vs. Wade dies with a whimper instead of a bang, it's still dead.
I was hoping for a election where I was proud to cast my vote for my candidate, rather casting my vote in fear of what the next four years could bring.
I am watching the arguments on my feminist blog debating not voting for Obama - staying home, voting for a third party candidate - and I have always come down on the side of doing less harm with your vote - if you are pro-choice, not voting for the candidate that will nonimate pro-choice judges is stupid. (And henceforth for the other issues - normally one candidate is more moderate than the other).
But I am sick and tired of it. I am sick and tired of voting in fear instead of pride. I am sick and tired of democrat candidates hating to be called liberals.
One of the articles that quoted Obama at the debates shown him saying over and over again "It's not liberal to want (universal healthcare, etc).
Damn it, is liberal to want universal healthcare. It is liberal to advocate birth control sex ed rather than just telling kids to not have sex.
There is nothing wrong with being liberal.
And a democratic candidate that feels that he need to not be a liberal, is a candidate that I don't want to vote for.
I don't want to see this country get worse. But maybe if the people who don't consider it shameful to be called liberal stay home or vote third party we might eventually get a candidate who doesn't think being a liberal is shameful.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-29 11:56 pm (UTC)I'm not suggesting that Obama's an absolutist on abortion, but none of the candidates are. Clinton voted for the born alive infant protection act. She's talked about wanting abortion to be rare, adopting her husband's compromise rhetoric. She supports notification requirements, albeit only in theory. She remained silent when her husband signed the permanent Hyde amendment into law and has not attacked it since. Her '90s health care plan saw incredibly broad exclusions on abortions. Her current health care plan is unclear on the issue, and it seems deeply unlikely to me that she'd be willing to lose her biggest battle a second time for an issue that she has not made so much effort over in the past.
It'd be perverse to vote against Clinton on the basis of her non-fanaticism on that score (although I suspect that Cynthia McKinney is purer), but it's also perverse to attack Obama for saying things that are closely related to one's first candidate. There are differences, but they're not where you're looking.
I've listened to the "it's not liberal" speech in person. He's not saying that it's bad to be liberal. He's saying that anyone with any common sense would have these views. That all Americans want universal health care and such. In the same way as I find his opposition to the born alive infant protection act odd, but deeply entertaining, I find his "America is united in wanting a deeply liberal democrat government" schtick slightly disturbing, but worth a smile. It's not a conservative, right wing thought, though. Republicans rarely believe that common sense, non-liberal Americans are crying out for universal healthcare.
Thinking about it, I'm not sure that I know where you stand on induced labor abortions? With Clinton for banning 'em, or with Obama for supporting 'em?
no subject
Date: 2008-03-04 08:26 pm (UTC)I use two different sites to get voting records, and Clinton is 100% on record as voting pro-choice - and without those pesky "present" votes that Obama has on several.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-04 10:44 pm (UTC)It's worth noting that the compilation of these sites tends not to be managed by apolitical entities. This bill's absense from their lists of abortion bills might tell you something about the loyalties of the compilers.