Now, they seem just as eager to distance themselves from the "radical feminists" and their wacky insistance that no one else should have control over their reproductive rights...

quote:

---

Democratic New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a likely 2008 presidential candidate, in a late January speech, stated that "abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."...

[...]

Sen. Clinton even declared, "I, for one, respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available."

"No" circumstances includes cases where a woman's life is endangered by a pregnancy. That's an exception that many antiabortion crusaders willingly concede, though radicals like Randall Terry, once the leader of Operation Rescue, vociferously disagree. But did Clinton really intend to express "respect" for the most extreme opponents of abortion?

Yet Clinton seems not to be alone. Long-time Democratic operative Paul Begala echoed her remarks, saying, "It's about time a Democrat stood up and said there are too many abortions in America, we ought to restrict the number, and people who oppose abortions are good people."

What's more, a whole slew of usually liberal magazines – Harper's, The American Prospect, The Atlantic Monthly, and the New Republic – have featured prominent essays expressing either ambivalence or downright opposition to the Democratic Party's ongoing defense of abortion rights.

Some of this is not new. The New Republic's Andrew Sullivan has long denounced abortion, and The Atlantic also has previously published anti-abortion screeds. But there's more going on here than just a plethora of calls to bring back the "safe, legal, and rare" slogan that Bill Clinton successfully invoked during his presidency.

Sen. Clinton's recent speech altered her husband's prescription, but most journalists didn't notice. She called for a world in which "the choice guaranteed under our Constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances." Only Slate's William Saletan highlighted the difference. "Not safe, legal, and rare. Safe, legal, and never," he emphasized. "Is the press corps asleep?"

---

Have the Democrats learned NOTHING?!

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

I would imagine that the rationale was the poor showing at the polls but I don't see why that would be attributed to the abortion issue.

I would also imagine that it is to do with 2008 election ambitions. We shall see!

I don't know about American journalists, but babble certainly noticed Senator Clinton's speech in January -- we had a thread on it, no?

Sen Clinton is actually doing what she needs to do to attempt to draw more votes and win in '08. To be fair their are not a lot more votes to be won on the left. To win the White House a Democrat needs to ciphon off votes from the center.

In terms of what to call her. She is many things, a wife, a mother, the junior Senator of New York.

I believe that any of these are ok and factually correct.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton,

the Junior Senator from New York Mrs Clinton

And at a dinner last year she was introduced with her husband as follows:

quote:

---

It's Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, NOT the president's wife.

---

I don't know why you bother Fern, Hailey never learns, she knows better but is rewarded for this behaviour. It's like people refuse to believe she's baiting anyone. It's not like this is the feminism forum or anything, oh wait it is, it's just not recognizable as it's been hijacked by Mrs. Fundie 2004-05.

And see Fern! A man has already run to Hailey’s defence in the feminism forum! It’s obviously okay to ignore who Hilary is and just call her the president’s wife, it’s not like she has an identity outside that relationship or achieved something impressive. You have surely over-reacted and wouldn’t know what you’re talking about. I am sure that when she’s president Hailey will still demean her by calling her Bill’s wife first.

quote:

---

I believe that any of these are ok and factually correct.

---

The Dinner I referred to was an Emily's List fundraiser that my wife and I attended last year. I would think that they would address the Senator properly

I wrote:

quote:

---

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton,

the Junior Senator from New York Mrs Clinton

And at a dinner last year she was introduced with her husband as follows:

The 42nd President of the United States William Clinton and Senator Hillary CLinton

---

Now I am serious what did I write that was offensive? I do not believe I called her Mrs. Clinton.

Heph: the Democrats are split in 2. Yes Dean has a faction it is the more left wing part of the party where the CLinton supporters are the more center right of the party

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: miles ]

The massive militarization of the Democratic party (including choosing the square-jawed vet Kerry over other contenders) was misguided and ineffective. But there they go again -- moving right.

quote:

---

Now I am serious what did I write that was offensive? I do not believe I called her Mrs. Clinton.

---

All we're asking here is that people respect women in general enough to recognize that a woman can be every bit as contemptible a politician as a man, all by herself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
No Yards, it's one thing to scorn Hillary's politics and opportunism -- I'm with you there.

All we're asking here is that people respect women in general enough to recognize that a woman can be every bit as contemptible a politician as a man, all by herself.

That was one of the oldest jokes of the women's liberation movement: we'll know we have equality when mediocre women are seen to go as far as mediocre men typically do.

---

You can be sure that the fact that Hillary is a female has zilch to do with my distain for her.