Bjorn Tipling

If you were just to compare the issues sections of Ralph Nader and Barack Obama, which strike you as being closer in line with your values?

Ralph Nader:
http://www.votenader.org/issues/

Barack Obama:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Because Obama said this:

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..

Yesterday I said this:

It is not liberals who do this. It is not our rockstar nominee who does this. It is a duplicitous, wolf in sheeps clothing. He may have said that “going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker, ” but no sir. The deal breaker is just you. Your lying, reactionary, double-speaking, fork-tounge demagoguery-wielding self.

Today he says this:

I don’t think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don’t think that’s how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don’t think that’s how the courts have interpreted it and I think that’s important to emphasize and understand.”

Today I say this:

I take the mean names I called him back.*

*I would have done this anyway. It’s not nice to call people names. I still think Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice now, but hindsight is 20/20.

And if you were wondering, I will vote for Obama, even if I call him names, he’s our nominee.

I never thought I would say these words. But it has come to this.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says “mental distress” should not qualify as a health exception for late term-abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.

It is the tactics of the right wing reactionary to present a false situation, a strawman argument, to portray a liberal value as a crime against humanity or American values. It is not a tactic a liberal politician uses.

It is the right wing that went after welfare with out of the ordinary examples of the tiny few people who, perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, lavished themselves with taxpayer money.

It is was politicians and pundits from the Republican party that argue for increased use of capital punishment by exploiting the suffering of victims of child rape.

It is conservatives who find the tiniest low probability possibility in our protections for pro-choice laws that protect mothers and the rights of women to argue for legislation that interferes with the medical expertise of doctors.

It is not liberals who do this. It is not our rockstar nominee who does this. It is a duplicitous, wolf in sheeps clothing. He may have said that “going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker, ” but no sir. The deal breaker is just you. Your lying, reactionary, double-speaking, fork-tounge demagoguery-wielding self.

So far he has reversed himself and/or capitulated to the right on:

FISA
NAFTA
Pro-choice values
2nd Amendment interpretation*
Faith-based initiatives
Public Campaign Financing
Withdrawing troops from Iraq

How was it that Hillary supporters saw through all this when I could not? Was it really misogyny?