From Anne and Women for Obama!

From: "Women for Obama"
Date: December 4, 2007 8:26:55 PM CST
Subject: The Facts about Attacks and Obama's 100% Pro-Choice Record

Dear Friends,


The campaign is heating up, and Hillary Clinton is resorting to old-school political attacks in a last-ditch effort to slow Barack Obama’s growing momentum.


With new polls in Iowa showing Senator Obama moving into the lead -- and ahead with women voters by 5 points – Senator Clinton and her campaign are shamelessly attacking Barack’s record and his character.


Just weeks after Senator Clinton promised not to attack her Democratic opponents, yesterday she announced that she would enter a new period of daily attacks on Barack, going so far as to say this is "the fun part" of campaigning for the residency.

The problem with Hillary’s attacks is that they’re filled with false charges and desperate rhetoric. First, she falsely claims that Barack Obama doesn't support universal health care, even though he has a detailed plan that would provide affordable health insurance for every single American and do more to cut the cost of health care than any other plan in this race.

Then her campaign attacked our youth empowerment efforts and tried to intimidate Iowa college students who plan to participate in the caucus. They even published an article on their website attacking Barack for telling his kindergarten teacher he wanted to be president when he grew up.

Now they’re trying to attack Barack Obama’s 100% pro-choice record.


Today’s attack was delivered by Ellen Malcolm, President of EMILY’s List – which has endorsed Senator Clinton and is spending millions on an Independent Expenditure campaign to try to get her elected. Malcolm called into question Barack’s commitment to protect women’s rights by pointing to old votes on a few politically motivated bills in the Illinois Senate. What Malcolm failed to point out was that Barack cast these votes as part of a strategy employed by pro-choice leaders in Illinois. That’s why so many top pro-choice leaders were outraged by the attack and immediately defended Barack’s record of leadership on this important issue.


Not only is Senator Clinton’s claim another baseless, desperate attempt on her campaign’s part to distort Barack’s record, but this tactic does nothing more than divide the pro-choice community at a time when we need to work together to elect a pro-choice candidate for president.


But don’t take our word for it. Read what leaders in the pro-choice community – who have worked side by side with Senator Obama – had to say about the latest Clinton attacks:

“I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and an EMILY’s List donor, but this line of attack is unacceptable. While I was the president of Chicago National Organization for Women, Senator Obama worked closely with us, could not have been more supportive of a woman¹s right to choose, and there was no bigger champion in Illinois on our issues. What¹s important is that the candidates do not cannibalize each other on issues we all agree about because we need to win in November.” Lorna Brett, former president of Chicago NOW

"During his years in the state legislature, Barack Obama was a strong and consistent supporter of women's reproductive rights. He worked hand-in-hand with Planned Parenthood in developing and executing strategies to make sure that women had access to reproductive health care. I also want to thank him for standing up with us in the effort to open the Aurora clinic and for his introduction of legislation guaranteeing access to low-cost birth control. Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area has proudly endorsed Barack throughout his entire political career." Steve Trombley, CEO & President, Planned Parenthood/Chicago Action


"The present votes Obama took at that time, along with many other pro-choice legislators, were 'no' votes to bad bills being used for political gain. We asked Senator Obama and other strong supporters of choice to vote present to encourage Senators facing tough re-elections to make the right choice by voting present, instead of caving to political pressure and voting for these bad bills. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama showed leadership, compassion and a true commitment to reproductive health care. The Republican Senate President at the time constantly used anti-abortion bills to pigeon-hole Democrats so that he could target them with misleading mailers during campaign season. It was a tactic that was about politics, not policy - and Obama didn't let them get away with it." Pam Sutherland, President & CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council


“Senator Obama is one of America’s strongest and most loyal defenders of women’s rights on issues of reproductive health care. I’ve contributed to EMILY’s List in the past ­ but I never will again, because I¹m so disappointed in their decision to launch these unfair, false attacks on behalf of Senator Clinton¹s campaign.” Libby Slappey, a former 13-year board member of Planned Parenthood of East Central Iowa.


Even Ellen Malcolm has praised Barack as recently as last year, after Barack gave the keynote speech at the annual Emily’s List Luncheon. In a letter to Barack, Malcolm writes:


Senator Obama,


Thank you so much for helping to make the 2006 EMILY’s List Majority Council Conference such a great success. Our Majority Council members told me again and again how energized they were to hear directly from you and how much they appreciated your spending time with us.


You truly inspired our members and reminded them why they support our work to elect dynamic pro-choice Democratic women ­ especially after hearing you speak about how you’re fighting to make change happen.


I appreciate your commitment to EMILY’s List. Here’s to victory in November!


Warmest regards, Ellen R. Malcolm, President


Handwritten: “You were terrific and really lit a fire with our members!
Thanks so much!!”


These attacks are not going away any time soon. Let’s be sure to remind ourselves and our friends about what a fighter Senator Obama has been for the pro-choice community.

· Barack has a 100% pro-choice vote rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

· He was the ONLY U.S. Senator who helped raise funds in 2006 to successfully repeal a South Dakota law that banned abortions. Senator Clinton refused to help in the effort. In fact, even EMILY’S List refused to help repeal the ban in South Dakota.

· Senator Obama is the only candidate for President who rose in support of Illinois Planned Parenthood when their new Aurora clinic faced a threatened shut-down.

· When Congress failed to pass a law to require insurance plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives, Obama supported a successful law to provide that requirement in Illinois.

· He recently co-sponsored a bill with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to make birth control more affordable for low-income and college age women after changes in federal law led to a skyrocketing new costs.

Hillary as our candidate? by Kathy from MO

Insightful articles from Robert Reich on Hillary's recent attacks on Obama. Also an interesting take in the New York Times today on Dem candidates in red states like Nancy Boyda of Kansas who fear Hillary will be on the top of our ticket pulling everyone down. Many of us fear a Hillary nomination. In honesty, I think she would be fine as president. She is smart and certainly got a first hand look at the world and important issues as first lady. She has embraced some important social programs over the years. Sadly, while running for president she has sold out as a politician trying to appear hawkish to look strong on security and trying to look middle of the road on a lot of social programs that she used to believe in. She is saying what she thinks the right wants to hear looking ahead to the general election instead of saying what she really believes. That said, she would be millions of times better than what we have had for 7 long years! On her worst day, she would be better than Bush! However, in this year when Dems have good candidates to run and it should be a year we can recapture the White House, it would be terrible to get such a polarizing figure as our candidate. I have said all along that the Rethugs want to run against her. They see her as able to bring out their voters the way none of their weak candidates can. Many polls show that the Republican voters are very disappointed in their field of candidates. They are all flawed. However, Hillary is the one person who can unite their base! People will show up to vote against her. It is sad but true. I hope Obama or Edwards can make a good showing in the early primaries. They both seem to be gaining especially Obama. Hillary must be worried. Instead of taking the high road, she is looking childish and petty in her recent attacks bringing up anything she can, even his kindergarten aspirations! This does not go down well with voters. Instead of making her look tough, it makes her look desperate. It makes me hopeful that she is not inevitably our candidate as the media keeps telling us. We can do so much better.

From Tony in Chicago!!!!

Hey --

Yesterday, a guy called here in order to 'garner
support for Mike Huckabee'-- he told me that "Huckabee
would fight the Democrats tooth and nail" and asked me
if he could count on my support.

I told him that 'd rather someone stomp on my cock
with track-shoes.

T.

From Anne in Chicago:

Name: Robert Reich (former member of Bill Clinton Cabinet)
MONDAY, DECEMBER 03, 2007
Why is HRC stooping So Low?
I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and
inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old
friend. While I’m as hard-boiled as they come about what’s said in
campaigns, I just don’t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC
attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security
doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape
than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need
bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten
years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting
the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll
taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000
(it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates
satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past
midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted
all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00.
That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer
Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's
irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the
retirement age (that’s what Greenspan’s Social Security commission
came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all
Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama’s plan would “raise taxes”
and her plan wouldn’t, she’s simply not telling the truth.

I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She
says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two
plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now.
But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than
HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains
sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help –
including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers
requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience
with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s
happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being
mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower
end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required
to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I
can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be
able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front
investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the
reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic
illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re
both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds
for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. "There's a big difference
between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what
we're willing to fight for," she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa
voters will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and
somebody who's walked the walk." Then asked whether she intended to
raise questions about O’s character, she said: "It's beginning to
look a lot like that."

I just don’t get it. If there’s anyone in the race whose history
shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC’s
campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about
anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold
positions and continuously seek the political center, which is
exactly what she’s been doing.

All is fair in love, war, and politics. But this series of slurs
doesn't serve HRC well. It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the
rest of the country. If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is
not the way to build them back up.
posted by Robert Reich | 8:07 AM
232 Comments:...
Conor Ryan said...
OK, the son is not guilty of the father's sins does not apply to
spouses. now, think of HRC schmoozing with Ruper Murdoch, and think
of the Presidential pardon given to the likes of Marc Rich by her
husband. Smells like the plutocratic stench of stealth Republicanism
to me.

Barack Obama support from the WSJ - sort of

DES MOINES, Iowa -- A month before Iowa holds the first contest of the 2008 presidential campaign, a newly energized Sen. Barack Obama has opened a narrow lead here, but many Iowans in both parties say they could change their minds in the next 30 days about which candidate to support. Read the full story here.

From Hank:

From: Hank Lowenstein
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 9:48 AM
To: 'letters@nytimes.com'
Subject: To The Editor


“Who’s Afraid of Barack Obama?” – Frank Rich – December 2, 2007


When I became eighteen years old in March of 1960, I was exposed to the eloquence, charm, intelligence and hopefulness of John F. Kennedy. I was so excited by the Massachusetts Senator that I volunteered for his campaign and proudly cast my very first presidential vote for him. Not until the emergence of Senator Obama has a candidate impressed or excited me in the same way. I have attended four Obama events in New York and come away each time, thinking that this man is truly magical. He is not simply talking about pie-in-the-sky possibilities, but rather what he believes he can actually accomplish if elected President.


Hillary Clinton and all the other Democratic and Republican candidates should well fear the power and passion of Senator Obama. He is the grass roots candidate that Howard Dean spoke of in 2004, and his appeal cuts across racial and political lines. There has not been a moment in my lifetime when America needed the likes of Barack Obama more than we do today. He is the only candidate who can unite this country, restore our dignity around the world, and return us to a nation of laws, compassion and respect.

From Judy:Frank Rich column

December 2, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Who’s Afraid of Barack Obama?
By FRANK RICH
JUST 24 hours after Hillary Clinton mowed down a skeptical Katie Couric with her certitude that she would win the Democratic nomination — “It will be me!” — her husband showed exactly how she could lose it.

By telling an Iowa audience on Tuesday night that he had opposed the Iraq war “from the beginning,” Bill Clinton committed a double pratfall. Not only did he refocus attention on his wife’s most hazardous issue, Iraq, just as it was receding as the nation’s Topic A, but he also revived unhappy memories of the truth-dodging nadirs of the Clinton White House.
Click here: Who’s Afraid of Barack Obama? - New York Times






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007.