Why I'm Not Writing That Check to Obama Today
I was planning to attend Barack Obama's big fundraising reception in New York tonight and make the maximum contribution to his campaign, but I have torn up the invitation.
My decision isn't about the money, though the thought of writing a check for $4600 for anything besides a mortgage payment or two takes my breath away. It seemed that important to do my part to prevent the 100% anti-choice John McCain's election and a de facto third Bush term.
I supported Hillary Clinton in the primary because I believe she's the most capable of meeting the enormous challenges the next president will face undoing the damage to women's rights, health, and justice caused by Bush. Still, I've admired Obama since I met him at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Later, in Washington after he was elected to the Senate, I sensed he was genuine in his commitment to women's equality. So, despite my still-raw feelings about Hillary's concession, I was prepared to go forward this week and commit full support to Obama.
Then the danger signals started.
Now, I've spent enough years on the political frontline to know that before getting that post-inauguration chance to do cleanup work, let alone start on new initiatives, any Democratic candidate must first navigate the political crucible that immediately engulfs him or her upon becoming the party's nominee. And it doesn't surprise me that Obama would seek to broaden his base by meeting with groups such as evangelicals and conservatives who are unlikely suspects to become Obama voters in large numbers. But I am shocked at the magnitude of what Marie Cocco has properly dubbed Obama's "pander tour".
During the last two weeks, the thunderclouds of doubt have gathered ever more ominously until they cast Obama's character into serious question. First there was a distant rumbling in his sudden support for FISA, followed by his support for the Supreme Court's ruling expanding the right to handguns. His statements about religion in public life and intentions to expand faith based funding programs were nervous making, though he did temper his comments with talk of Constitutional protections for church-state separation.
By the time he spoke to an evangelical group, sounding for all the world like he was withdrawing his long held opposition to the Federal abortion ban by running, not walking, down the slippery path of parsing what reasons for abortion the law may deem acceptable or not -- infantilizing woman and devaluing their moral capacity and human right to exercise it -- I was seriously questioning whether this man would have the necessary mettle to withstand any challenges at all. Or worse, is he just another politician swaying with the winds and running for cover at the hint of a little thunder?
He'd obviously allowed the anti-choice misstatement of the abortion ban's provisions to frame his answer, when any lawyer ought to know that buying into your adversary's argument is guaranteed to doom your own. He replied to their questions as though the abortion ban law concerns only abortions late in pregnancy when in truth it states no time or gestation factor and could seriously limit access to abortions much earlier in pregnancy. Equally disturbing, his words override the principle of medical judgment in what constitutes risk to the woman, as transcribed in Relevant Magazine:
Strang: ...there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?
Obama: I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions...
But the last straw was his comments on sex education, when he gratuitously offered up language coded to out-triangulate any triangulating he had ever accused Hillary of doing:
Strang: You've said you're personally against abortion and would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions under your administration. So, as president, how would do you propose accomplishing that?
Obama: I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important -- emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that's something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think [is] the proper role of government.
So just about the time state after state has recognized the damage done by abstinence programs and withdrawn from federal funding for them, we're going to have a president committed to abstinence education? I don't think so. And this coming from a man who in the Senate is a sponsor of the Prevention First Act and the Freedom of Choice Act? I certainly hope not.
In the big picture, Obama's character begins to appear as someone who is quick to deflect, demur, defer to his challengers. The dreaded flip-flopper, whom voters always see as a loser. When the frame is focused on reproductive rights and health specifically, we see a candidate who is either uninformed (not likely) or speaks with an unacceptable lack of moral center about abortion, sex education, and family planning.
I truly hope Obama will have sense enough to come in out of the rain of his self-induced controversy and recognize that he's a lot more likely to persuade women like me to support him than he is to get the votes of those who press for him to betray his previously stated pro-woman principles and will almost certainly abandon him at the ballot box anyway.
For now, he has a long way to go to convince me my $4600 would be a good investment.
Follow Gloria Feldt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Heartfeldt
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
well, after today's flip on FISA and all of obama's theocratic tendencies, I guess I will be voting for nader after all.
Thanks to you all for the conversation here. The discouraging thing is that argument is always about whether we want slightly bad or worse when it comes to election day. Being a political realist I am used to this and as I said, I'll vote for Obama--it's just that I don't have to do so with enthusiasm. There are many great totally pro-choice and unapologetically progressive candidates I can support with my money and time. But I worry a lot that many of the newly activated primary voters will go back into their cynical or simply disengaged shells; their absence in the voting booth on November 5 is what will elect John McCain.
On the subject of the Supreme Court, I think it deserves a post in itself, so thanks for motivating me to do that in the near future.
Gloria Feldt, the reason you do not want to support Obama is war and Palestine.
Ms. Feldt,
Your article comes on a bad day for this Obama supporter reading here today.
The problem is that while reading your proud proclaimation of the tearing up of your check, I went on to read other articles that joined yours today, one from Kristen Breitweiser expressing hopes ot reviving Hillary's campaign and taking the nomination away from Obama at the convention, another article with news of PUMA suggesting the same thing, and yet another article with Hillary's fundraiser Susie Buell talking of all the things she dislikes about Obama and a hint of perhaps supporting McCain with her money. !!
But for the grand finale, I ended with an article about how Obama supporters are reluctant to help Hillary pay her debt. I wonder if there's a connection. ??
As unfortunate as it is for her small vendors who haven't been paid, as well as for Hillary's reputation, I just find myself with an overwhelming urge to tear up a check. I'm sure you understand the feeling.
Except, you were never going to send that check, anyway. Be honest, now.
Yes, actually, I was. Not for Hillary. But because I come from working class people. Those vendors in places like Indiana, North Carolina, Montana that she ran up debt with in her quest for office are struggling.
what did you expect? Obama is a politician...just ask his pastor who has known him for 20 years!
I have changed my mind on Obama. Why? He has changed his mind on Democrats!
Obama has flipped on FISA – old news –unfortunately. Granting immunity to the telecoms for continued, warrantless surveillance of phone and email communications will yield Obama huge dividends. Admittedly, the glutting of his war chest by the telecoms for a little “somethin-somethin” far outweighs the nickel-and-dime donations made by us little people at the beginning of his campaign.
Obama loves guns – i.e. the 2nd Amendment – MORE than protections against unlawful search and seizure – i.e. the 4th Amendment. Akin to Charlton Heston, he supports the rights of citizens to carry armor-piercing automatic weapons to fast-food restaurants or the park.
Obama is really backpedaling on IRAQ policy thinking we need to stay there an indeterminate time.
On LIFE issues, he feels more competent than a doctor to determine if a pregnancy is endangering the life of a woman. However, he is quite willing to give a thumbs-up on state-sponsored executions.
Tell us Senator, does life begin at fertilization, conception or birth?
Because Obama calculates FUNDAMENTALIST Christianity so integrally into his political message and advantage, he has never caved in on marriage equality. He fervently supports guaranteeing a State-sponsored policy of “separate and unequal” treatment of same-sex couples.
What difference is there between Barack and a Republican? None!
Obama promises “change” – A third Republican term in everything but name.
Jay Walsh Springfield IL
Many are dissatisfied with Obama and are hoping the DNC will return to sanity. We are asking Superdelegates to reconsider their votes for him. The committed delegates were so close, even after many were discounted and biased, that the difference is around 100. There are ober 800 Superdelegates. If only 175 of them change their mind about Obama and vote for Clinton at the Democratic Convention in August, she would become the Democratic Nominee.
Obama forced Clinton to suspend her campaign by outspending her. His funding sources are not what he represented them to be. Find out more about him before you decide.
You can contribute to Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign (not Senatorial) at
https://contribute.hillarycampaign2008.com/form.html?sc=3200
Lu for PUMA
www.blog.pumapac.org
I couldn't agree with you more Gloria. Who is this guy really?
When I made an earlier comment that the American electorate was center right, some “troglodyte for Obama” responded that I should just go ahead and vote for McCain. I haven’t voted for a Republican since 1972 and it’s not going to happen this year either. But I may not vote for the Democratic nominee. The only candidate left who’s articulating a progressive message is Ralph Nader.
Senator Obama has been talking way past the center right electorate. He could just as well be a neo-con since he’s taking their stances on all the issues that matter. All that he’s missing are calls for the bombing of Iran and for more off-shore drilling. I understand his notion of bringing us all together, but how can that happen if he leaves his base behind?
Legislators have no business interfering in the practice of medicine whether the issue is abortion, stem cell research, or something else, their meddling can be tantamount to murder. Congress is no place to practice medicine. Obama should know that.
Family values are another issue for Congress to avoid. The family values people only respect their own ideas of family and seek to make all families cookie cutter images of their own.
If you still want to make a donation to Obama, buy a cheap, Chinese make panda bear and hand it to him in person.
And when McCain appoints the next Supreme Court Justice and they overturn Roe v. Wade, will you still feel good about your all-or-nothing approach?
Stop getting distracted by the trees. Look at the forest.
Those scare tactics won't work. Roe v. Wade withstood 2 terms of Bushwacking and McCain is going to have to deal with a Democrat contolled legislature if he gets elected. That is why certain factions within the DNC justified selecting the less qualified candidate. If McCain is elected, the Democrat controlled legislature will just have to work a little harder.
So you're putting your faith in the 9% approval rate Democratic congress? That's how you justify you hatred of Senator Obama now?
You are delirious Lu4PUMA.
1. The Supremes have been splitting 5-4. 2-3 McCain appointees will be a disaster and Roe v. Wade will be history. That's not a scare tactic, it's a fact. Roe v. Wade will be challenged in the courts, not Congress, so your point about a "Democrat" (are you sure you're not a Rethug troll?) controlled Congress blocking an overturn of Roe is nonsensical.
2. Delegates, both committed and super, who represented the will of the people, elected our nominee, not factions, as you clumsily suggest.
But mccain will be able to put his people on the supreme court .Its 5 to 4 now one or two more justices will make the difference for all of us.Do you really want to risk that?
Remember this uncomfortable fact: Three years ago the Democrats GAVE US Roberts and then Alito.
It's true that the Court is one justice away from a Right Majority. But beginning in 2005, the pink-tuu-tuued Dems brought us to that point from being THREE JUSTICES AWAY.
With Obama now injecting a religious test into public taxpayer issues and abortion, it's reasonable to assume there will be more Robertses and Alitos.
So your point about the Supremes is?
So you'd like to pretend that the huge fight over those BUSH nominees never happened? (remember the 'nuclear option'?)
You'd like to pretend that 3 years ago the dems already had a slim majority? (they didn't get it until january 2007)
You'd like to pretend that that Obama will appoint justices who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Sorry, I can't go there with you, I'm needed back here in reality.
and what's your point? Roberts and Alito aren't going to overturn Roe v Wade...The Republicans have had years to do that...truth is they aren't interested in doing it.
democrats gave us Roberts and then Alito. i thought that the president appointed them, and the senate has to to confirm the appointment, which went for a long long hearing as far as i can remember
No you weren't.
It's amazing the number of people who have no record of supporting Barack Obama who keep appearing to declare that they 'can no longer support Barack Obama'
What's even more amazing is their belief that anyone's going to be convinced by their public hand-wringing act.
You hard core tri-state Hillary supporters (like Kristen, the autor of the "NO, She Can't blog) just don't get it.
Your 4,600 bucks is not an "investment". There is no return on it other than knowing that the country will be under the capable leadership of an extremely smart, principled, yet pragmatic leader. Unlike the Clinton world, where donors were promised all sorts of access and influence on policy, the Obama campaign will not allow you and your fellow large donors to have more impact than the student who donates $25...and it's about time. Whining about Obama's pragmatism and playing the selfish "I tried but couldn't support him" game, rather than accepting Obama as the nominee who deserves your support, is rather absurd, given Obama's closeness to HRC on core Democratic issues...or would you rather prefer a McCain Court? Listen to Hillary, Gloria. Support Barack Obama.
Clinton lost for a reason. The voters tired of the games she and surrogates like you played. If you decide to become rational, keep your $4,600 and write out a check for $25 instead. It's just as important.
Senator Obama has morphed himself into exactly what Senator Clinton stood for without deception! I'm happy that the left is upset.....We do not know this man and if anyone had read his book and done any homework on him, we would find that wright said it best, "HE'S A POLITICIAN" . It's a shame that so many thought they were getting something else!!
It's not just support for "abstinence education" (that term makes me giggle it's so silly)--but the totality of what he's come out with lately that is so upsetting. Support for faith based initiatives, restrictions on abortion--yikes. Even though Hillary won in my state anyway, if I could take my vote for him back I would. I am so disappointed. I guess I won't be voting in November. How naive for a woman of my age to place "hope" in a political candidate. They all reek.
Hillary Clinton is for FAITH BASED INITIATIVES and RESTRICTIONS ON LATE TERM ABORTIONS!Hello is there anybody uot there??
I was, and continue to be a sceptic of Hillary Clinton just as I now am of Barack Obama.
I am familiar with the Obama positions on these issues - at least where he stands, today.
Could you please post websites that show Sen. Clinton supports Faith-Based Initiatives and Restrictions on choice? Thanks.
I said I would take back my vote for Obama. That's all I said.
EVERYONE is in favor of giving minors encouragement and information about staying abstinent. It is just that all thinking people want that information coupled with science based information on birth control. Obama did not say anything different, nor would he.
On July 7th Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorsed Obama, calling him "... a passionate advocate for women's rights [who] has a long and consistent record of standing up for women's health care. As president, he will improve access to quality health care for women, support and protect a woman's right to choose, support comprehensive sex education to keep our young people healthy and safe, and invest in prevention programs, including family planning services and breast cancer screenings."
It seems like a large part of the problem some are having with Obama is after eight years of Bush, a man who was president only to conservatives, many want a president who will only serve the progressives. That'll show those rotten Republicans. There are a lot of us who believe there is substance in serving as many Americans as possible and sometimes that means believing, actually believing, in positions with which your base may not agree. I hate it that handguns are allowed to be made at all, but face it, the majority of Americans want them to be legal. For a lot of people, abortion is not a black and white issue; particularly late term. It's no more right to say abortions for none than it is to say everyone must have one. Obviously, I realize that is not the pro-choice stance, but my point is most Americans don't believe it's all or nothing with every issue. Issues are deep and confusing and trying to pin them down to neat packages we either agree with or not is foolishness and it's exactly what we've been up against for more than eight years. Good, thoughtful post, though, instead of a senseless screed like so many others.
I think it's completely reasonable that we (progressives) would expect a shift to the left after Bush. Now is the time it could actually happen! Look at the damage Bush has done in eight years--the war, handling of Katrina, judicial appointments, the economy. We should be pushing left and hard! Why is it always our party that has to move to the center (a la Bill Clinton?) Yes, though I disagree, I can understand some of the arguments in favor of handguns and against abortion. However, those positions (pro gun and anti choice) represent the other party, not ours! Why should we compromise on them? They aren't willing to.
Except for the "she's the most capable" line about Hillary, which should have been constructed in the past tense (it's over), I agree with Gloria Feldt. Obama has been a disappointment. We thought we were going to get someone who could stand up without shame and run as a moderate liberal based on the truth of the platform and the timing of people being sick with the right wing agenda. Now we get a politician who makes John Kerry look like MLK.
Dear Gloria,
As a long time committed supporter of Planned Parenthood of America and my local affiliate, I would like to say this:
I would respect you much more if you had communicated your concerns to Obama directly, rather than as a first response air the dirty linen in public. Your failure to see that this is now a two-person race, and that by tearing down Obama you are helping McCain, is astonishing coming from a person of your experience. Let's give Obama a little credit and have faith in his judgment. He does have an excellent track record on reproductive rights and the rights of women generally. It's time to be realistic, here.
Here's to a big Democratic win in November,
Signed,
Loyal Democrat from Washington State
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
