From "Nuanced" to Principled: The Lessons of Pastor Rick, and Why and How Obama and the Democrats Should Make Abortion a Voting Issue
For years Democratic candidates have struggled with how to counter Republican stands that paint the world in black and white, readily summarized in brief, evocative phrases (e.g., "life begins at conception," "tax and spend," "cut and run"). A prime example is abortion, which has left Democrats outside the Northeast and Northwest (where candidates can safely proclaim, "I'm pro-choice" and live to talk about it) and national candidates tongue-tied for years.
Barack Obama faced this problem Saturday night at Rick Warren's "Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency." When asked when he believes life begins, he led with a wonderfully disarming comment about the answer to that question being "above my pay grade." But he then proceeded to offer a somewhat rambling, discursive response that I can't readily summarize after having just read the transcript three times. The main thing I remember is that he said he believes in a woman's right to choose and Roe v. Wade. Commentators referred to his response, like many of his responses Saturday night, as "nuanced," a politic way of saying that it showed greater complexity than his Republican opponent's answer but had the usual ring of a Democratic presidential candidate's response to a question about an emotionally charged issue: too intellectual and difficult to grasp its essence.
When asked the same question, John McCain knew what his task was: to convince the far right, and particularly Christian conservatives, that he is one of them. So his answer was crisp and unequivocal: "At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress and in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment."
So is the problem, as many apologists on the left would suggest, that progressive positions are just more complex and not easily reduced to sound bites? Yes and no. Sure, it's easier to summarize a Manichean world view than one that posits more than two forces in the world (good and evil) and more than two options in every situation (pro-life vs. pro-death, staying the course vs. surrender, free markets vs. communism). But the problem is not that our ideas are too sophisticated. It's that the way we present those ideas is not sophisticated enough.
Most Americans actually disagree with John McCain on abortion, as they do on most of the issues that separate him and his Democratic rival. Polls show that only 30% of Americans believe all abortions should be illegal, and few support a return to the pre-Roe era. The majority -- including the majority of evangelical Christians, who made up Warren's audience -- think we should find some kind of "middle ground" on abortion. The reason is that most Americans are ambivalent about abortion. Virtually no one -- left, right, or center -- is comfortable with late term abortions except when the mother's life or health is in danger. The idea of aborting an 8-month-old fetus for convenience (something no one would really do, but it makes a great bogey man to push Democrats down slippery slopes) is deeply disturbing to the vast majority of Americans in a way that aborting a 10-week-old fetus is not.
Why? Because the concept of life is what cognitive psychologists call a "fuzzy set" -- a concept that doesn't have clear boundaries. Unconsciously, most people view a newly fertilized embryo as qualitatively different from a late-term fetus because it doesn't seem like a person. But the point at which a fetus seems to us more like a person than not is indeterminate.
Regardless of their conscious beliefs -- that life begins at conception or that life begins when a baby takes its first breath -- most people's feelings follow their unconscious perceptions. That's why early in pregnancy even most evangelical Christians find it morally repugnant to force a rape victim to bear her rapist's child, even though they may consciously believe that the fertilized egg is a life, whereas late in pregnancy most people aren't comfortable with abortion except in exceptional circumstances. In their guts, most people feel that Roe v. Wade got it about as right as we're going to get it -- which is why the vast majority of Americans don't want it overturned -- even if they can't articulate why.
The million dollar question is how to talk about an issue that requires nuance in a way that is succinct, principled, and captures our gut-level sensibilities. If Democrats continue to parry Republican war cries of "baby killer" with emotionally bland or euphemistic phrases like "reproductive health" or continue to couch the debate in terms of life vs. choice, offering ambivalent voters a Hobson's choice, they do indeed have something to worry about.
But that isn't how Democrats should talk about abortion. The pollster Stan Greenberg and I recently completed the first draft of one of the most wide-ranging progressive messaging projects of which I am aware, using a sample of 10,000 to study 10 different ways of talking about 9 issues, from wedge issues (e.g., abortion, guns, gays, immigration) to national security and taxes (where Democrats have traditionally similarly been on the run) to the economy (where Democrats hold an advantage). We found that progressives can win the abortion debate by 15 to 20 points seven different ways against a strong "pro-life" message much like the one McCain offered Saturday night, and they can win in some very unlikely parts of the country. When progressives speak honestly to voters' ambivalence and make their principles clear and emotionally compelling, Americans tend to prefer honesty and nuance to oversimplification. The answer doesn't lie in "dumbing down" our messages. It lies in ratcheting up their emotional intelligence. On some issues it took us several tries in focus groups and online dial-tests to find the words that conveyed what we were trying to express without triggering some other meaning we hadn't intended, but by the time we had completed the latest round of testing, we had multiple messages that beat well-branded conservative messages by 8 to 30 points on every issue.
The language of "choice" is not, in fact, the most compelling way to engage most Americans on abortion. It doesn't resonate with most voters in the center, and it activates negative stereotypes about feminism and promiscuity (and, not surprisingly, it polls particularly poorly with men, who have conflicting feelings about both). It was the right language in the 1960s, when women's right to control their own bodies was emblematic of their struggle for equality, but that was 40 years ago, and as meanings change, so should messages. It is a particularly weak appeal to an evangelical Christian audience, for whom it begs the question, "Whose choice matters most, God's or a (mortal) woman's?"
Obama wasn't going to win over the majority of Warren's parishioners, but he could have spoken to them in their own language while winning the hearts and minds of the majority who were listening on television. He might have begun by acknowledging the obvious, that he knew he wasn't going to convince most of Pastor Rick's flock, but that he was nonetheless one of them, with a comment like, "Well, I knew at some point I was going to be in there with the lions. I know many of you won't agree with me, but I hope my answer at least leaves you with as much respect for me and my beliefs as I have for you and yours." He could then have continued, once again drawing them in while addressing concerns about him that had been raised in recent weeks, "The Bible says that pride is a sin, and I'd be showing more pride than even John McCain thinks I have, with those celebrity and Moses ads, if I told you that I know with certainty when life begins. I wish I did, because then this would be an easy question. But here's where I stand":
No one truly knows what's in the mind of God, and I just don't like the idea of government telling a woman or couple when they should or shouldn't start their family based on somebody else's interpretation of Scripture. We need to find the common ground on abortion, reflecting our shared moral beliefs, not the beliefs that divide us. We are all united in the belief that we should do everything we can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, and abortions, starting with instilling in our children both the values and the knowledge to make good choices. And we all agree that abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control and shouldn't be an option late in pregnancy except when the mother's life or health is in danger. I could go on and talk about how misguided I think our currently policies are that deny access to birth control to women and teenagers in our inner cities, which does nothing but perpetuate the cycle of poverty, stop young people from getting an education and fulfilling their God-given potential, and make it more likely that they'll have children before they're ready to be good parents. But the main point I want to make is that in this country, we don't force one person to live by another person's faith. This should be a personal and moral issue, not a political one.
This is a variation of one of the messages we tested, although it is considerably longer than those messages, which we kept to about 45 seconds. I revised it here to fit both the audience and the central narrative of Obama's campaign (the theme of focusing on what unites and not what divides us).
I'm not claiming that this is the best or only narrative Obama could have offered on abortion. Central to Obama's appeal is his genuineness, and the only messages he should offer voters are those that fit his values and style. But this way of talking about abortion has several features that render it a strong, principled message. It isn't hard to come away with the central theme, because it's offered in both the opening sentence and at the end: That as long as we do not all share the same religious beliefs, the government has no business forcing one person to live by another person's faith. It speaks to religious freedom and government intrusion, two themes usually associated with narratives on the right but that should be central to a progressive narrative on abortion. It recognizes, as Obama did in his actual answer, that this is a moral issue, and it builds on common ground, emphasizing themes like reducing teen pregnancies and instilling values that are shared by both the left and right and hence are likely to be compelling to people in the center. And it re-enfranchises males by reminding men that they have a stake in this, too: that although ultimately the decision to abort or not to abort resides with the mother, women usually make these decisions together with their husbands or boyfriends, and that a woman or couple, not the government, should make these kinds of intensely personal decisions.
I would be remiss not to conclude with one final thought. The impact of a message doesn't reside solely in the words, metaphors, imagery, frames, or neural networks it triggers or fails to trigger. The messenger, the delivery, and the nonverbal communication are equally important. This year Democrats have chosen a messenger who is a tremendously gifted orator. But Obama has not been able to translate what he can do on the stump to debates or interviews. In contrast to McCain, who had clearly been coached to speak to his audience, to use personal examples, and to stay focused throughout on his primary goal--to convince doubters on the right that he is one of them -- Obama too rarely spoke to his audience, too rarely connected with personal stories, and did not seem to have come into the evening with a game plan of what he wanted to accomplish.
None of that should have happened after over 20 debates and hundreds of television appearances, and none of it would have happened after the second or third Democratic debate if Democrats understood the importance of narratives and nonverbal cues. Republican presidential candidates have outperformed their Democratic counterparts for most of the last 40 years in message, and they have outperformed them in delivery. The reason is simple: They have understood the value of both. Whether or not McCain had a little help outside the cone of silence Saturday night when he sauntered into the church in time to have heard half the questions, there is no question that he had the benefit of superb coaching on both his verbal and nonverbal messages. The Obama team needs to take the cue. If someone with the appropriate expertise hasn't spent a few days with Obama watching the tapes of his prior debate performances and giving him feedback on what voters are picking up between his words, there's no better way he could spend the week of the Republican Convention.
Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation," recently released in paperback with a new postscript on the 2008 election.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Drew Westen for President! (Or at LEAST presidential speech writer!) What a great way to discuss this issue. Seriously! the only thing I regret is that you didn't send this to the Obama campaign first. Now if he uses this phrasing he could be accused of plagarism again.
the correct answer is another Question: "When do ones Human Rights END"? I am afraid that they currently end at Birth for persons not holding membership of the upper Class. The masses are meant to provide both the economic and Human Resources for that elite to 'take over the world.' The USA has been in an ongoing war of National Security for at least 150-years now collecting the national wealth of an ever growing circle of nation states. Without the citizens willingness to lay down their lives for this elite group of "robber barons" , this elite is Nothing!
The Current requirement to relinquish our freedoms is necessary for their ability to keep the unborn and ready to fight to the death in the Dark is another element of the fear tactics the conservatives require to motivate our masses to die for their wealth. The MSM and the Religious Right and our Democracy are the "toolset" utilized to accomplish this.
The mineral rights of the USA belong to the Population at large. All the requirements of daily life must be under Goverment control ... in a not for Profit heirarchy. Otherwise You have what Russian style democracy / capitalism is currently creating a new example of the USA System. The ruling Soviet elite has torn down that wall and divided it up among themselves just like America has done more Subtly and more efficently because the didn't have to create a disfunctional system like the dems & repubs here have!
the bible is very clear that god breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Not until breath was there life.
So, while in the mother's womb...the baby is dead?
It's under constructi
As a man I can never give birth, but I think of the issue as if I were considering something of my own creation, religious dogma set aside; if it is incomplete, not functional, and within my rights to discard this personal creation, then I should be able to do so without permission from the government [simply because I am unhappy with the outcome so far].
I am able to take this very cold and calculating position on abortion because as the potential sexual partner who is incapable of giving birth, I have no say in the matter anyway. And I do believe the feminist adage that if men were able to give birth, abortion would be legal and there would be no widespread controversy to speak of.
IMNSHO, the abortion issue is between women and those insane religious folks who rob a woman of a choice on how to use her body; as a man without a religious framework to inform my position, I long ago realized that I have no stake, and worse, no choice in the matter, regardless of my feelings on a simple human basis.
If you are alive at conception that you better change your birthday to show how long you have lived. Oh wait . . .birth . . .day . . .gee I get it! You are alive and count how long you have been alive from the day you are born. See life begins on your birth day.
Should we count the time it takes for our cells to rot when we die to state time of death too? Silly, silly, silly.
One has to have life before death. If you have a problem with the bible, I suggest you go to the source.
I don't want to kiss the butts of religious people, who I think are delusional to begin with. I don't want any "God-given" this or "God-given" that in this discussion - Obama never should have gone to that Christian smack-down, he should have stood up for separation between Church and State. This is what bothers me about Obama, this view that there is middle ground when none exists, that you can "work" with Republicans and Independents when you cannot. Sperm and ova are ALIVE, so life cannot "begin" at conception, this is a fiction divorced from science. The entire Christian religion is divorced from science, there are no "rights" in nature, no archeologist ever unearthed a "right" - they are man-made agreements, usually created by the powerful and bestowed upon themselves. There is no right to life - ask anyone on an airplane going down if they have a right to life. This is pure hysteria. We have a power struggle going on - between the rational and the irrational, between scientific truth and religious myth, between sanity and insanity. At some point TRUTH should be part of this discussion. Every single creature on this earth reproduces, it has nothing to do with God. Medical science has given us options, choices to which the religious have always objected. Inoculations were opposed as "against the will of God." I am SICK of religious people telling me what to do. I want my party to OPPOSE religiosity, not EMBRACE it.
You have a limited understanding of the Christian Faith. The sad thing is that discussions are centering around what Evangelicals beleive..o
How else is anyone supposed to feel about religious people when they continually deal in superstition and illogic and denials of reality, while continually trying to impose their standards on the body politic? Demigod is absolutely correct, and if people who are SICK of imposed religious policy say it up front, they are considered closed-minded and bitter and rude and even... evil! But the prognathous thinking that is keeping America on the down-hill slide has to subsume itself before we can fix much of the disease that's eating up this and all fundamentalist nations. Go ahead and worship things you don't see or understand if you want to, but mandating that billions of other people think, feel and act exactly like you is immorality of the Fascist sort.
Simply saying 'I'm a Christian but I'm not stupid' without saying why, is not good enough. Because if you're going to continue to believe in ancient texts written by other people, and conclude when life begins when you have NO IDEA, and impose your will on other people and on our public institutions, then you're not going to be absolved of any of the onus of any other Bible-thumping bigots who live greatly in ignorance and comfortable ideas instead of informed knowledge and personal responsibility. Christians and other religious people, who base their decisions on faith, should desist imposing that faith on other real people, and let this nation get back to the business of restoring peace and prosperity.
The fundie evangelicals ARE in world of their own as far a science goes. Few would know inductive reasoning from alien abduction, and they simply do not accept uncomfortable scientific facts if they conflict with their "faith".
A most compelling piece. The examples of a more sophisticated dialogue make for an object lesson that should not be lost on the Obama camp. Interesting how the Saddleback forum and its fallout are still the focus of attention, both in the blogosphere and the MSM. Mr. Westen's arguments could well be extended to realms of the campaign beyond the confines of Saddleback, abortion, etc. With a little more e.i. (Emotional Intellegience -- it's about time Ronnie Laing's book and principle made it into the dictionary), the progressive message may have some legs yet. And it seems -- at least to me, anyway -- that Barack Obama is just the guy who could pull such a thing off, both in the remaining weeks leading up to the general election and in governanace as POTUS. Think of Robert Redford in the final scene of "The Candidate" to sum up much of what may go wrong if a consistent message backed up by equally consistent action is not applied here.
I'd agree with much of this post but I think our challenge is much larger than crafting the right sound bite or framing questions correctly. We need to extend the dialog.
There is a wonderful feature on the Obama campaign website that allows you to generate a list of neighbors to door knock, discuss the campaign, and record their voting preferences for use by campaign get out the vote efforts.
Continuing the dialog with neighbors, I think you will find that many 'pro-life' voters are troubled by a definition of 'life' that ends at birth and are often resentful at being manipulated by the likes of Karl Rove and John McCain. They can likely agree on issues of war, torture, healthcare and education. And if we can agree to disagree on this issue -- with a common commitment to reducing abortions through improving choices -- they can become key Obama supporters and even organizers.
What about those of us who don't care???
Abortion is the most overblown, trivial issue facing us today. For every woman that has an abortion, there are hundreds of kids who are undereducated, receive poor health insurance, and live in families with difficult economic circumstances. How about giving children proper educations so that teenagers won't have unwanted pregnancies?
This year, after the alleged victory of the Surge, more American soldiers will die violent deaths than their will be abortions.
Meanwhile, we all face a grim world suffering from climate catastrophe. Who cares if a child is born or not if our entire species is threatened with a dying planet?
"This year, after the alleged victory of the Surge, more American soldiers will die violent deaths than their will be abortions.
You think there are less than 1,000 abortions performed per year here in the US?
-boggle-
Roe v Wade will not be overturned, no matter what. The issue will be the same as it was in 1973.
I agree that this is a completely stale and irrelevant issue this campaign cycle: if people are passionate enough to let the abortion issue sway their vote, they've been backing McCain the whole time and nothing can change that. Vice versa for Obama.
What decent parent would not be extremely bothered to hear that his or her daugter was involved in such a devastatingly difficult decision?
I'm against abortion, but I do not believe that it's the government's place to tell people what to do with their bodies...
However, I do believe it's the government's place to educate, to further and encourage the discussion, to help people and young people avoid such a difficult situation.
It really shouldn't be any more complicated then that
What more would you want to ask of a politician? Even most Rethug pols never really do anything more then talk about it. They know that they will not go forward to changing anything; yet they place themselves on a disingeuous moral high ground to make themselves look more moral, or better.
The abortion issue is the Republican's best issue. They have conned and teased the religious right with it for years. Do you think they will ever settle this issue the way these people want them to? Then what hook will they use to hypnotize them? Outlawing abortion did no more to stop abortions than prohibition stopped drinking. It just meant that more people died from the unsafe ways that they used to get around unjust laws.
The question was "when do YOU believe life begins." Not "what is the general consensus among scientists, NARAL, and the Catholic church about when life begins".
BHO gave a non-answer to that question. If he actually holds a belief about that issue, he refused to share it. This is typical of most "progressives" on this issue.
Most progressives don't want to ask or answer that question, because it undermines their focus on the arbitrary legal definition granting legal rights only to the "born".
In fact, if you did a survey of 100 libs on this site, my guess is that 99 of them would also refuse to answer that question for the same reason. They know they can't make a reasonable argument for the arbitrary legal definition of life, but they are far, far more concerned about keeping abortions of convenience legal than they are about the rights of any fetus, "living" or not.
Okay, we'll bite: When does life begin?
I personally believe that life should be respected at conception. I would not be comfortable using certain forms of birth control that prevent implantation of the embryo. I would have no problem using forms that either prevent ovulation or prevent fertilization.
Doesn't the article address the fact that "99 of 100" of "us" don't presume to know when life begins because we don't confuse ourselves with God or have the misconception that we have knowledge other mere mortals do not? You're beating the same dead horse.
I'm with feo - what do YOU think and who told you that you had it exactly right?
You missed the point of his answer. He was in a church talking with minister and his answer conveyed that the other Person in the room (that would be God, in case you are still missing the point) was the One with the best answer -- the One who is above Obama's, Warren's and our pay grade.) It was not any more a non-answer than was McCains answer to the "moral failing" question.
The answer to the question is to be answered by each individual according to their relationship with God, Goddess, Mother Earth or whomever they look to for guidance.
It is not up to you or me or anyone else to politicize it. THAT is the sin. That is above ALL our "pay-grades".
If God has the answers, and if BHO will be leading the country, and having to make decisions about this issue, that begs the question of whether BHO has ever bothered to ask...
Based on his cop out answer, my guess is no.
The bible say it begins at first breath. What about that?
In the Bible, it's at first breath. In the Middle Ages, according to the church, it was at "quickening" (when the fetus was first felt moving). Now, it's at conception. What's next?
Hey minister, you show me where is says that abortion is a sin in the bible. You show me where it says that we are to care for the fetus. Where does the bible say when life begins? Who made that crap up?
Why is there so much infanticide in the bible? Have you noticed that?
Did you even listen to BO's response? He made it clear that no one can know the true answer. At conception/3rd trimester/
If Roe v Wade were overturned, what would repubics campaign about? This is their #1 campaigning issue for 30 yrs. or more. If they would try to legislate some change, it would be different. They get the votes from uneducated lemmings and move on. Don't these chosen people get tired of being duped?
OK-
Everyone is anti-abortion. So how can our nation reduce the INCIDENCE OF ABORTION?
Because merely outlawing abortion will not reduce the number of abortions, people will simply get them where they are legal.
No, Obama had it right,
Reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Provide viable alternatives to abortion.
How?
Better sex education, free prenatal and postnatal healtcare, free contraception for the young and the poor, better adoption alternatives. NON judgemental free counseling.
Countries with unlimited abortion like Israel and Denmark have half the rate of abortion that the US does. Find out why, and emulate them.
Finally- Republicans have done nothing about abortion, other than use it to get themselves elected. Think about it.
I'd like to have a presidential candidate say that abortion is not a key issue that needs to be addressed in the next four years. Neither is gay marriage nor legalizing marijuana nor prayer in school or even having the right to carry a handgun into the neighborhood bar. Let's tackle the bread and butter issues first.
These issues detract us from the fundamental issue of making it possible for all Americans to live better lives and work for a better future for our children. If we focus on better jobs and a better future, educated young women will make better choices for children who have the prospects of better lives.
Spot on!
I disagree with you for these reasons: McCain has promised to have "pro-life policies" in his presidency, has said he wants to see Roe overturned, and would have the opportunity to elect a Supreme Court Justice who could do that. So while the bread and butter issues ARE most important right now, we can't afford to ignore the issue of abortion and women's rights.
A very high percentage of McCain's primary votes came from people who are pro-choice and who don't know that McCain is anti-choice. This has to become a bigger issue so that people know exactly where he stands. (His voting record on other women's issues also need to be brought to light.) Currently, Boosh is trying to get contraceptives re-defined as "abortion.
What if Obama said we need to set the abortion issue aside and talk about raising working class incomes. We need to not become distracted from creating stable families by arguing when life begins. It is more important that a family stay together, have a future to raise their children towards in a safe community. Why continue to debate the criminalization of abortion? Let Roe V Wade stand. We need to confront the real issues.
I am more grieved by the idea that the child a woman, a family has raised and perhaps at considerable hardship is lost to senseless violence or the hopelessness of drugs than the parlor argument of when life begins.
Let the Grover Nordquist's of the World use their ploy of the sanctity of life when we all know they could care less. They kill off government for their selfish, distorted view of America. They murder hope. They murder everything that working Americans believe being an American represents. Why should someone raise a child to be another cog in the corporate wheel?
To some extent I agree with you, but I think that tackling the issue of legalizing marijuana will significantly improve quality of life. I refer to the extraordinary number of drug-related convictions in American prisons, and the slew of drug- and gang-related violence that inevitably arises when marijuana remains a cash crop. Government
But that's not to ignore the issue of victimization. Civil liberties for all, but harsher punishments for offenders who victimize others. You're never going to find a moment that everyone will agree upon as the cusp of life--it's an ethical quandary. Given that, I'd much rather move to give a woman the right to choose what happens to her body. IMHO, if it's attached to her, it's hers to decide. If I suddenly sprouted a brain on my right arm, nobody would tell me that I wouldn't be allowed to amputate. But that's personal opinion, again, and there'll never be consensus on that issue as long as I live.
The problem with your answer is that it's too intelligent. The Republicans have mastered the art of the emotional sales pitch. There is zero information in their delivery there is only emotional manipulation. The reason why it works is because people fall into several mental categories but they all decide with their emotions.
That's why Obama has been appealing; not because of the huge plan that he has for changing this country but the concept of empowerment he offers to people to join in that change. He is the focal point of that change, but we are machine for action. He is the leader who says let's get together to change the world. We are the ones we have been waiting for.
In order for Mr. Obama to win the debate and counter the simplistic messages of Republican pollsters he needs to do exactly what Drew Westen is saying. He needs to craft the big message to the individual on a one on one basis.
Thank you Drew Westen. The fact is Obama needs to learn what should be a fundamental lesson of communication. Stories, personal anecdotes, speaking to the audience in a NATURAL conversational manner are key to creating a sense of "feelilng" that conveys the values and sincerity of the speaker. McCain is a master of telling a story to convey feelings that create an emotional bond with the values of an audience. Obama, who I think is quite sincere, appears too much like a lawyer trying to find the perfect set of words that will qualify and limit the damage caused by his "nuanced" view of when life begins.
McCain didn't care that his position would offend pro-choice voters. Obama and most pro choice Democrats do care because, they think pro-life hardliners might buy a balanced position. Obama would have done much better if he had a story that would present the agony often experienced by a couple making a decision to abort an unborn child. I simply can't believe that God would find it more acceptable to let a mother, who already has children, die because it is wrong to abort an unborn child to save her life. That's just a way of saying God prefers - or in Rev. Warren's words "has a purpose" in seeing - orphaned children, a widower husband, than keeping the existing family in tact by aborting an unborn fetus to save a mother's life.
"And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment
If you Hill-raisers out there do not get behind Obama - this is what you will sow. And it will demonstrate without question that your agenda has less to do with what is best for women than what you say it is.
I agree with the diary, I agree with most of the comments. This is not a winning issue for Republicans UNLESS they can somehow demonize Obama on it. (Which is why they're gearing up to misrepresent
the Illinois Bill). The majority of Americans, and an even higher percentage of women, oppose outlawing abortion outright. They will also be susceptible to the "slippery slope" argument - that the extreme pro-birth movement will next be going after many of the contraception devices. But Obama must absolutely
firm up his answer. In a previous thread someone posted how Hillary answered a similar question at one point. Obama might want to borrow her approach to the question. Between now and the first debate the Obama team needs to find about 20 probable questions/issues and have firm, effective answers. Lord knows, the McCain team has got their boy all primed and ready. And shallow. But that's what wins.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
