Who then?

Michael Bloomberg, that’s who.

http://www.RunMikeRun.com

Obama Hits Hillary In New Hampshire Mailer

By Greg Sargent – December 18, 2007, 10:32AM

In yet another sign that the Dem Primary has become a war over who can portray his or her opponent as the most negative of the bunch, Barack Obama has dropped a new health care mailer in New Hampshire decrying the fact that Hillary “attacked” him: … with images … READ ALL.

The issue of the next POTUS nominating the next Justice on the SCOTUS alone should be enough to vote Democratic. We can hold our noses and roll with the punches. That’s what adults do when life serves up something that stinks.

Reshaping the Democratic Party toward a more progressive agenda is a long-term strategy. Thinking that this election is it is foolishly idealistic to a fault and a rewind to Election 2000. Did you like how that turned out?

I will vote for Big Bill in the primary. That’s my chance to vote my conscience. After that, I will vote Democratic no matter who is on the ballot and it is the only sane choice given the possible outcome if a bunch of whiny pissypants stay home.

All he has to do is crusade for a lack of medical privacy, and meet the standards he wants others to face, by a simple waiver of prileged family medical information…

Of course, another telling issue is that Obama went out of his way to endorse Alexi Gianoulis over the Party’s preferred candidate for Illinois Treasurer. The Party wanted a pro-life candidate to balance the ticket. Jesse Jackson and Obama went to bat for Alexi who is strongly pro-choice and got him elected. Alexi is now a rising star in Illinois politics and committed to pro-choice issues.

=However, I still think that the “present” vote was a cop-out. If he was opposed, he should have taken a clear stand and voted no … did he just do whatever Planned Parenthood suggested without thinking on his own that it’d look like a cop-out to future voters?

No, it was a shared strategy with Planned Parenthood to promote pro-choice candidates and give those with a tougher time on some bills some room to maneuver.

Emil Jones went from being in the minority 2002 to holding a Supermajority after the 2006 election. He helped create this strategy with Planned Parenthood and other choice advocates in the Illinois Senate including Lisa Madigan, the first woman Attorney General in Illinois and Debbie Halvorson the first woman Senate Majority Leader in Illinois. Quite strategically, Planned Parenthood and Personal PAC worked on this sort of strategy to create a Democratic Majority that would then have the ability to simply not call anti-choice bills. The strategy was more successful than anyone thought. In conjunction with a decent remap and some shrewd targeting the Democrats now control every branch of government in Illinois and all of the Constitutional Offices.

The strategic thinking was the opposite of not thinking–it was thinking long term how best to serve the interests of reproductive rights and given the results, it’s pretty hard to argue with the strategy.

The problem with the theory that he should have stood up and proclaimed his views is that he did. When the Democrats took the majority from 2003 until his election to the US Senate, Obama sat on anti-choice bills himself and took all of the heat from the loons like Stanek.

In fact, it’s hard to tell how you think you can hit him from two sides. If he is vulnerable for not supporting the Born Alive Protection Act introduced in Illinois and killing it himself, he cannot also have a bad record of being pro-choice because he voted present. And vice versa. He has always said he would support BAPA that the US Senate passed with Hillary Clinton’s support, but the bills were significantly different. Trying to compare them plays into every right wing narrative on the issue which is a shame since both Clinton and Obama have strong pro-choice records.

Moral issues. I do see, hear a lot of people spouting off about moral issues, but never ones that concern them. Those who are “pro-life” would never put themselves into a position of having an unwanted child. Those who are strongly for abortion, though often DON’T lead promiscuous lives, do see their right to control outcomes.

So really, either way, this is really all about more SPITE. I don’t like the way “other people” lead their lives, so I am going to become empowered through my sense of self satisfaction on the grounds that I have got my way and they haven’t got theirs. At its limit, this phenomena is a play on REVENGE. A family member had been affected by something, so a general war against the perceived transgression begins.

Ok, so some of you are already saying….”ok smart ass, what’s right?”

The right answer is that society should provide for its offspring, if society accepts social responsibility. By that, I mean, the circumstances of procreation are irrelevant, society has an obligation to support all at the highest moral level. But, take heed, I believe that we identify our parents before birth and become life because we want to join them. Why? Well we have our lives to find that out. Therefore those who opt for abortion commit a small, and society commits a greater sin for not holding itself responsible. Not enough money. Make more.

Because society actually doesn’t really give a damn about unwanted pregnancies and abortions, dissent is restricted to a few do gooders who crow from the sidelines. The cause is invariably to blame sexual administration in some way. After the mammoth job Reagan and Thatcher did in presenting the AIDs myths, Clinton has done on attacking “promiscuous” teenagers who are on their rite of passage, it is no wonder that safety under the condom is implied in the above article. The dynamite solution. I wonder what the World condom business is worth. Any ideas, MrM? I’d bet its in the billions. What did they do to guarantee safeguards against AIDs for instance? How were condoms tested? Did unaffacted individuals have sex with affected individuals to test out the theory?

Even those gullible enough to assume that condoms afford any protection against STDs (though I concur certain STDs are very low risk using condoms) surely must realise that the difficulty with laws that are asking people to sacrifice or change, is ensuring they are effective and if not, how to enforce them. Immediately you attempt to enforce something you have started a war and I think society has had a belly full of wars and its time to look at things more laterally.

Dodd Wins, Reid Pulls Fisa

Reid has pulled FISA from the floor. This wouldn’t have happened without Dodd, Feingold, Kerry and the other Senators who were willing to go the wall on this. It’s not a permanent victory, in January it’ll have to be fought again, nonetheless it is a win.

I’m very sad that although Dodd is a candidate for the Democratic nomination, he isn’t polling better. Because while I like things about Edwards and Richardson, Dodd has proved, over and over again, to be the only contender I could actually be really, really enthusiastic about.

I would suggest that Democratic primary voters take another hard look at Dodd. He’s certainly the only Senator running who’s actually serious about his oath to uphold the Constitution.