okay. i've been an avid reader of DU for a while and have only posted recently. Kos had some terrific commentary on the Hillary hatred from the left today. I think people need to remember that Hillary is NOT the enemy. It is so infuriating to watch folks on the left completely absorb the MSM/Repug talking points on Hillary. Have we learned nothing at all over recent years? Let's just take the latest firestorm on the left over Hillary's abortion speech. Reading the NYT headline and article most folks came away with the notion that Hillary was "softening" her stand on choice. Its an easy mistake. Sure. even some of the women's organizations were instinctually skeptical. But upon further review (i.e. reading the actual speech) they correctly conclude that the article was terrible misleading. And that is my point: we can not rely on the media. We can not rely on the media. Read for yourselves. We have enough work fighting against the MSM and the Repug machine. We really shouldn't be so gullible and quick to shoot at our own.
anyway. slate had, i think, a most helpful analysis of the actual speech.
Two days ago, marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Hillary Clinton gave a speech outlining her views on abortion, contraception, and abstinence. "Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions," said the front page of the New York Times. "Hillary in the middle on values issues," agreed the Washington Times. But Clinton isn't trying to end the abortion war. She's repositioning her party to win it.
Clinton's speech basically updated the pro-choice message for the age of terrorism. She began by talking about Romania and China, two regimes that in the last two decades forced women to abort (in China's case) or not to abort (in Romania's case) pregnancies. Fifteen years ago, when legal abortion in this country was in doubt, pro-choice Democrats framed abortion laws as big government to turn libertarian voters against pro-life Republicans. Now that abortion's legality seems more secure, it's harder to scare libertarians about government in their bedrooms. And post-9/11 conservatism differs in emphasis from the conservatism of the late 1980s and 1990s. It's more like the Cold War, focused on right and wrong and freedom abroad. Tyranny overseas resonates at home. Bush says he's liberating women around the world; Clinton said Bush is repressing them with a "global gag rule" against internationally funded family planning.
It's hard for Americans to remember abortion bans here, much less imagine them today. What China and Romania illustrate is the ugly mechanics of turning anti-abortion morality into law. "Once a month, Romanian women were rounded up … taken to a government-controlled health clinic, told to disrobe while they were standing in line …
examined by a government doctor with a government secret police officer watching," Clinton recalled. "In China, local government officials used to monitor women's menstrual cycles and their use of contraceptives." In both cases, "the government was dictating the most private and important decisions," said Clinton. "With all of this talk about freedom as the defining goal of America, let's not forget the importance of the freedom of women to make the choices that are consistent with their faith and their sense of responsibility to their family and themselves."
Note the concluding words: faith, responsibility, family. This is the other side of Clinton's message: against the ugliness of state control, she wants to raise the banner of morality as well as freedom. Pro-choicers have tried this for 40 years, but they always run into a fatal objection: Abortion is so ugly that nobody who supports it can look moral. To earn real credibility, they'd have to admit it's bad. They often walk up to that line, but they always blink.
Two days ago, marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Hillary Clinton gave a speech outlining her views on abortion, contraception, and abstinence. "Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions," said the front page of the New York Times. "Hillary in the middle on values issues," agreed the Washington Times. But Clinton isn't trying to end the abortion war. She's repositioning her party to win it.
Clinton's speech basically updated the pro-choice message for the age of terrorism. She began by talking about Romania and China, two regimes that in the last two decades forced women to abort (in China's case) or not to abort (in Romania's case) pregnancies. Fifteen years ago, when legal abortion in this country was in doubt, pro-choice Democrats framed abortion laws as big government to turn libertarian voters against pro-life Republicans. Now that abortion's legality seems more secure, it's harder to scare libertarians about government in their bedrooms. And post-9/11 conservatism differs in emphasis from the conservatism of the late 1980s and 1990s. It's more like the Cold War, focused on right and wrong and freedom abroad. Tyranny overseas resonates at home. Bush says he's liberating women around the world; Clinton said Bush is repressing them with a "global gag rule" against internationally funded family planning.
It's hard for Americans to remember abortion bans here, much less imagine them today. What China and Romania illustrate is the ugly mechanics of turning anti-abortion morality into law. "Once a month, Romanian women were rounded up … taken to a government-controlled health clinic, told to disrobe while they were standing in line … examined by a government doctor with a government secret police officer watching," Clinton recalled. "In China, local government officials used to monitor women's menstrual cycles and their use of contraceptives." In both cases, "the government was dictating the most private and important decisions," said Clinton. "With all of this talk about freedom as the defining goal of America, let's not forget the importance of the freedom of women to make the choices that are consistent with their faith and their sense of responsibility to their family and themselves."
Note the concluding words: faith, responsibility, family. This is the other side of Clinton's message: against the ugliness of state control, she wants to raise the banner of morality as well as freedom. Pro-choicers have tried this for 40 years, but they always run into a fatal objection: Abortion is so ugly that nobody who supports it can look moral. To earn real credibility, they'd have to admit it's bad. They often walk up to that line, but they always blink.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
