![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mar. 4th, 2008
Fuck you, Indiana.
Seriously. It amazes me that so many people still have hope for this state. Hopefully over the next few years things'll get better, but good gracious. If it's not yours, don't touch it. That includes my uterus, kthx.
Find your state here.
P.S. Hey Canada, before you get too uppity, you've got your problems, too. Seriously, guys. Doctors' offices refusing to perform pap smears on women who aren't married? Fuck you, too.
Seriously. It amazes me that so many people still have hope for this state. Hopefully over the next few years things'll get better, but good gracious. If it's not yours, don't touch it. That includes my uterus, kthx.
Find your state here.
P.S. Hey Canada, before you get too uppity, you've got your problems, too. Seriously, guys. Doctors' offices refusing to perform pap smears on women who aren't married? Fuck you, too.
Fuck you, Indiana.
Seriously. It amazes me that so many people still have hope for this state. Hopefully over the next few years things'll get better, but good gracious. If it's not yours, don't touch it. That includes my uterus, kthx.
Find your state here.
P.S. Hey Canada, before you get too uppity, you've got your problems, too. Seriously, guys. Doctors' offices refusing to perform pap smears on women who aren't married? Fuck you, too.
Seriously. It amazes me that so many people still have hope for this state. Hopefully over the next few years things'll get better, but good gracious. If it's not yours, don't touch it. That includes my uterus, kthx.
Find your state here.
P.S. Hey Canada, before you get too uppity, you've got your problems, too. Seriously, guys. Doctors' offices refusing to perform pap smears on women who aren't married? Fuck you, too.
Fuck you, Indiana.
Seriously. It amazes me that so many people still have hope for this state. Hopefully over the next few years things'll get better, but good gracious. If it's not yours, don't touch it. That includes my uterus, kthx.
Find your state here.
P.S. Hey Canada, before you get too uppity, you've got your problems, too. Seriously, guys. Doctors' offices refusing to perform pap smears on women who aren't married? Fuck you, too.
Seriously. It amazes me that so many people still have hope for this state. Hopefully over the next few years things'll get better, but good gracious. If it's not yours, don't touch it. That includes my uterus, kthx.
Find your state here.
P.S. Hey Canada, before you get too uppity, you've got your problems, too. Seriously, guys. Doctors' offices refusing to perform pap smears on women who aren't married? Fuck you, too.
More ramblings about the right to choose
Mar. 4th, 2008 03:43 pmFound an interesting entry on a Pro-Choice LJ community.
This is not a long video, but well worth watching. It covers pretty succinctly why Clinton's smears against the strength of his pro-choice stance are utter shit. This woman worked with him, and I'm inclined to believe her before I believe Obama's campaign rival. Further, it's especially compelling that she used to support Clinton and changed her mind because of the contention over choice-issues.
There's an included video as well. It's not long either, but it answered some questions for me. My main discomfort with Obama was that he didn't have strong and unambiguous votes on a lot of choice issues. He voted "present" on some stuff that I'd rather have a yes or no for, and that bothered me. However, now I'm hearing that he did this on the advice of pro-choice groups that he was working with, and if they're still okay with him I'm inclined to believe that he wasn't somehow betraying them by voting "present" on the legislation in question. Also, the South Dakota issue makes a big difference for me, and Halpin mentions it in this video.
Also, read the comments on the main entry I linked. Really. As![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
insomnia stated: It's one thing as well that Clinton has a good voting record on pro-choice issues... but why was it that Barack Obama was the only senator who came to the aid of South Dakotan women when their rights were threatened? He didn't have to, as it wouldn't reflect on his voting record either way, but the thing is, he stuck himself out there and helped.
Senator Clinton was contacted too... so why *didn't* she help? I'm sure she'd make some sort of argument about it being a regional South Dakotan issue which she shouldn't get involved in, or about "states rights"... but what about Roe v. Wade? Shouldn't Democrats do more than just pay lipservice to it at a local level, thereby allowing it to be regionally undermined?
Just some random odds and ends that have been on my friends page lately that seemed worth sharing.
This is not a long video, but well worth watching. It covers pretty succinctly why Clinton's smears against the strength of his pro-choice stance are utter shit. This woman worked with him, and I'm inclined to believe her before I believe Obama's campaign rival. Further, it's especially compelling that she used to support Clinton and changed her mind because of the contention over choice-issues.
There's an included video as well. It's not long either, but it answered some questions for me. My main discomfort with Obama was that he didn't have strong and unambiguous votes on a lot of choice issues. He voted "present" on some stuff that I'd rather have a yes or no for, and that bothered me. However, now I'm hearing that he did this on the advice of pro-choice groups that he was working with, and if they're still okay with him I'm inclined to believe that he wasn't somehow betraying them by voting "present" on the legislation in question. Also, the South Dakota issue makes a big difference for me, and Halpin mentions it in this video.
Also, read the comments on the main entry I linked. Really. As
insomnia stated: It's one thing as well that Clinton has a good voting record on pro-choice issues... but why was it that Barack Obama was the only senator who came to the aid of South Dakotan women when their rights were threatened? He didn't have to, as it wouldn't reflect on his voting record either way, but the thing is, he stuck himself out there and helped.Senator Clinton was contacted too... so why *didn't* she help? I'm sure she'd make some sort of argument about it being a regional South Dakotan issue which she shouldn't get involved in, or about "states rights"... but what about Roe v. Wade? Shouldn't Democrats do more than just pay lipservice to it at a local level, thereby allowing it to be regionally undermined?
Just some random odds and ends that have been on my friends page lately that seemed worth sharing.
More ramblings about the right to choose
Mar. 4th, 2008 03:43 pmFound an interesting entry on a Pro-Choice LJ community.
This is not a long video, but well worth watching. It covers pretty succinctly why Clinton's smears against the strength of his pro-choice stance are utter shit. This woman worked with him, and I'm inclined to believe her before I believe Obama's campaign rival. Further, it's especially compelling that she used to support Clinton and changed her mind because of the contention over choice-issues.
There's an included video as well. It's not long either, but it answered some questions for me. My main discomfort with Obama was that he didn't have strong and unambiguous votes on a lot of choice issues. He voted "present" on some stuff that I'd rather have a yes or no for, and that bothered me. However, now I'm hearing that he did this on the advice of pro-choice groups that he was working with, and if they're still okay with him I'm inclined to believe that he wasn't somehow betraying them by voting "present" on the legislation in question. Also, the South Dakota issue makes a big difference for me, and Halpin mentions it in this video.
Also, read the comments on the main entry I linked. Really. Asinsomnia stated: It's one thing as well that Clinton has a good voting record on pro-choice issues... but why was it that Barack Obama was the only senator who came to the aid of South Dakotan women when their rights were threatened? He didn't have to, as it wouldn't reflect on his voting record either way, but the thing is, he stuck himself out there and helped.
Senator Clinton was contacted too... so why *didn't* she help? I'm sure she'd make some sort of argument about it being a regional South Dakotan issue which she shouldn't get involved in, or about "states rights"... but what about Roe v. Wade? Shouldn't Democrats do more than just pay lipservice to it at a local level, thereby allowing it to be regionally undermined?
Just some random odds and ends that have been on my friends page lately that seemed worth sharing.
This is not a long video, but well worth watching. It covers pretty succinctly why Clinton's smears against the strength of his pro-choice stance are utter shit. This woman worked with him, and I'm inclined to believe her before I believe Obama's campaign rival. Further, it's especially compelling that she used to support Clinton and changed her mind because of the contention over choice-issues.
There's an included video as well. It's not long either, but it answered some questions for me. My main discomfort with Obama was that he didn't have strong and unambiguous votes on a lot of choice issues. He voted "present" on some stuff that I'd rather have a yes or no for, and that bothered me. However, now I'm hearing that he did this on the advice of pro-choice groups that he was working with, and if they're still okay with him I'm inclined to believe that he wasn't somehow betraying them by voting "present" on the legislation in question. Also, the South Dakota issue makes a big difference for me, and Halpin mentions it in this video.
Also, read the comments on the main entry I linked. Really. As
insomnia stated: It's one thing as well that Clinton has a good voting record on pro-choice issues... but why was it that Barack Obama was the only senator who came to the aid of South Dakotan women when their rights were threatened? He didn't have to, as it wouldn't reflect on his voting record either way, but the thing is, he stuck himself out there and helped.Senator Clinton was contacted too... so why *didn't* she help? I'm sure she'd make some sort of argument about it being a regional South Dakotan issue which she shouldn't get involved in, or about "states rights"... but what about Roe v. Wade? Shouldn't Democrats do more than just pay lipservice to it at a local level, thereby allowing it to be regionally undermined?
Just some random odds and ends that have been on my friends page lately that seemed worth sharing.
More ramblings about the right to choose
Mar. 4th, 2008 03:43 pmFound an interesting entry on a Pro-Choice LJ community.
This is not a long video, but well worth watching. It covers pretty succinctly why Clinton's smears against the strength of his pro-choice stance are utter shit. This woman worked with him, and I'm inclined to believe her before I believe Obama's campaign rival. Further, it's especially compelling that she used to support Clinton and changed her mind because of the contention over choice-issues.
There's an included video as well. It's not long either, but it answered some questions for me. My main discomfort with Obama was that he didn't have strong and unambiguous votes on a lot of choice issues. He voted "present" on some stuff that I'd rather have a yes or no for, and that bothered me. However, now I'm hearing that he did this on the advice of pro-choice groups that he was working with, and if they're still okay with him I'm inclined to believe that he wasn't somehow betraying them by voting "present" on the legislation in question. Also, the South Dakota issue makes a big difference for me, and Halpin mentions it in this video.
Also, read the comments on the main entry I linked. Really. Asinsomnia stated: It's one thing as well that Clinton has a good voting record on pro-choice issues... but why was it that Barack Obama was the only senator who came to the aid of South Dakotan women when their rights were threatened? He didn't have to, as it wouldn't reflect on his voting record either way, but the thing is, he stuck himself out there and helped.
Senator Clinton was contacted too... so why *didn't* she help? I'm sure she'd make some sort of argument about it being a regional South Dakotan issue which she shouldn't get involved in, or about "states rights"... but what about Roe v. Wade? Shouldn't Democrats do more than just pay lipservice to it at a local level, thereby allowing it to be regionally undermined?
Just some random odds and ends that have been on my friends page lately that seemed worth sharing.
This is not a long video, but well worth watching. It covers pretty succinctly why Clinton's smears against the strength of his pro-choice stance are utter shit. This woman worked with him, and I'm inclined to believe her before I believe Obama's campaign rival. Further, it's especially compelling that she used to support Clinton and changed her mind because of the contention over choice-issues.
There's an included video as well. It's not long either, but it answered some questions for me. My main discomfort with Obama was that he didn't have strong and unambiguous votes on a lot of choice issues. He voted "present" on some stuff that I'd rather have a yes or no for, and that bothered me. However, now I'm hearing that he did this on the advice of pro-choice groups that he was working with, and if they're still okay with him I'm inclined to believe that he wasn't somehow betraying them by voting "present" on the legislation in question. Also, the South Dakota issue makes a big difference for me, and Halpin mentions it in this video.
Also, read the comments on the main entry I linked. Really. As
insomnia stated: It's one thing as well that Clinton has a good voting record on pro-choice issues... but why was it that Barack Obama was the only senator who came to the aid of South Dakotan women when their rights were threatened? He didn't have to, as it wouldn't reflect on his voting record either way, but the thing is, he stuck himself out there and helped.Senator Clinton was contacted too... so why *didn't* she help? I'm sure she'd make some sort of argument about it being a regional South Dakotan issue which she shouldn't get involved in, or about "states rights"... but what about Roe v. Wade? Shouldn't Democrats do more than just pay lipservice to it at a local level, thereby allowing it to be regionally undermined?
Just some random odds and ends that have been on my friends page lately that seemed worth sharing.
"I'm happy to concede that point."
Mar. 4th, 2008 11:14 pmOkay, this video was awesome.
Obama and Clinton Debate on MSNBC
Okay. So aside from the Denounce/Reject issue (whose hilarity is self-evident and glorious to behold), let's look at something else.
Not only has Clinton been riding her husband's coattails during this whole "experience" kick she's on, but she's even riding Obama's. Check the video.
Commentator: "So what about this Farrakhan stuff?"
Obama: "I think he's an anti-Semite and I want nothing to do with him."
Commentator: "So you like Jews."
Hillary: "Eh! Eh! I like Jews, too! I like Jews more! .....I guess yeah, whatever. What he said."
Come on. Watching the two of them in a debate is just... well, it's not even fair. Obama is called out on something (like the fact that when Hillary's campaign wanted him to release his tax returns he did, even though she herself refused to do it), he cleans house. Hillary then either tries to jump on the wagon to claim some of that luster for herself, or she tries to quibble on a weird little nothing point in order to claim some scrap of victory. (If you don't believe that's her motivation, check her little "good!" after he concedes this silly point and states that he'll reject and denounce. She said that like she'd just won something.)
All I can do is mirror that incredulous smile that Obama gave her and think, "What. She just did that. Does she even have campaign advisors, and if so... whose bright idea was it to let her out unsupervised?"
Watching her debate, I have to wonder who's convinced by this. I have to wonder who watches her bungling as badly as Bush ever did (in message if not in syntax) and thinks "Yes, I want this person to be the voice of my nation to the world." I have to wonder who watches her struggle to hide hypocrisy and pettiness and backsliding and thinks "I trust this woman with the future of my nation."
Who are these people?
Hillary Clinton, I reject and denounce your campaign.
Obama and Clinton Debate on MSNBC
Okay. So aside from the Denounce/Reject issue (whose hilarity is self-evident and glorious to behold), let's look at something else.
Not only has Clinton been riding her husband's coattails during this whole "experience" kick she's on, but she's even riding Obama's. Check the video.
Commentator: "So what about this Farrakhan stuff?"
Obama: "I think he's an anti-Semite and I want nothing to do with him."
Commentator: "So you like Jews."
Hillary: "Eh! Eh! I like Jews, too! I like Jews more! .....I guess yeah, whatever. What he said."
Come on. Watching the two of them in a debate is just... well, it's not even fair. Obama is called out on something (like the fact that when Hillary's campaign wanted him to release his tax returns he did, even though she herself refused to do it), he cleans house. Hillary then either tries to jump on the wagon to claim some of that luster for herself, or she tries to quibble on a weird little nothing point in order to claim some scrap of victory. (If you don't believe that's her motivation, check her little "good!" after he concedes this silly point and states that he'll reject and denounce. She said that like she'd just won something.)
All I can do is mirror that incredulous smile that Obama gave her and think, "What. She just did that. Does she even have campaign advisors, and if so... whose bright idea was it to let her out unsupervised?"
Watching her debate, I have to wonder who's convinced by this. I have to wonder who watches her bungling as badly as Bush ever did (in message if not in syntax) and thinks "Yes, I want this person to be the voice of my nation to the world." I have to wonder who watches her struggle to hide hypocrisy and pettiness and backsliding and thinks "I trust this woman with the future of my nation."
Who are these people?
Hillary Clinton, I reject and denounce your campaign.
"I'm happy to concede that point."
Mar. 4th, 2008 11:14 pmOkay, this video was awesome.
Obama and Clinton Debate on MSNBC
Okay. So aside from the Denounce/Reject issue (whose hilarity is self-evident and glorious to behold), let's look at something else.
Not only has Clinton been riding her husband's coattails during this whole "experience" kick she's on, but she's even riding Obama's. Check the video.
Commentator: "So what about this Farrakhan stuff?"
Obama: "I think he's an anti-Semite and I want nothing to do with him."
Commentator: "So you like Jews."
Hillary: "Eh! Eh! I like Jews, too! I like Jews more! .....I guess yeah, whatever. What he said."
Come on. Watching the two of them in a debate is just... well, it's not even fair. Obama is called out on something (like the fact that when Hillary's campaign wanted him to release his tax returns he did, even though she herself refused to do it), he cleans house. Hillary then either tries to jump on the wagon to claim some of that luster for herself, or she tries to quibble on a weird little nothing point in order to claim some scrap of victory. (If you don't believe that's her motivation, check her little "good!" after he concedes this silly point and states that he'll reject and denounce. She said that like she'd just won something.)
All I can do is mirror that incredulous smile that Obama gave her and think, "What. She just did that. Does she even have campaign advisors, and if so... whose bright idea was it to let her out unsupervised?"
Watching her debate, I have to wonder who's convinced by this. I have to wonder who watches her bungling as badly as Bush ever did (in message if not in syntax) and thinks "Yes, I want this person to be the voice of my nation to the world." I have to wonder who watches her struggle to hide hypocrisy and pettiness and backsliding and thinks "I trust this woman with the future of my nation."
Who are these people?
Hillary Clinton, I reject and denounce your campaign.
Obama and Clinton Debate on MSNBC
Okay. So aside from the Denounce/Reject issue (whose hilarity is self-evident and glorious to behold), let's look at something else.
Not only has Clinton been riding her husband's coattails during this whole "experience" kick she's on, but she's even riding Obama's. Check the video.
Commentator: "So what about this Farrakhan stuff?"
Obama: "I think he's an anti-Semite and I want nothing to do with him."
Commentator: "So you like Jews."
Hillary: "Eh! Eh! I like Jews, too! I like Jews more! .....I guess yeah, whatever. What he said."
Come on. Watching the two of them in a debate is just... well, it's not even fair. Obama is called out on something (like the fact that when Hillary's campaign wanted him to release his tax returns he did, even though she herself refused to do it), he cleans house. Hillary then either tries to jump on the wagon to claim some of that luster for herself, or she tries to quibble on a weird little nothing point in order to claim some scrap of victory. (If you don't believe that's her motivation, check her little "good!" after he concedes this silly point and states that he'll reject and denounce. She said that like she'd just won something.)
All I can do is mirror that incredulous smile that Obama gave her and think, "What. She just did that. Does she even have campaign advisors, and if so... whose bright idea was it to let her out unsupervised?"
Watching her debate, I have to wonder who's convinced by this. I have to wonder who watches her bungling as badly as Bush ever did (in message if not in syntax) and thinks "Yes, I want this person to be the voice of my nation to the world." I have to wonder who watches her struggle to hide hypocrisy and pettiness and backsliding and thinks "I trust this woman with the future of my nation."
Who are these people?
Hillary Clinton, I reject and denounce your campaign.
"I'm happy to concede that point."
Mar. 4th, 2008 11:14 pmOkay, this video was awesome.
Obama and Clinton Debate on MSNBC
Okay. So aside from the Denounce/Reject issue (whose hilarity is self-evident and glorious to behold), let's look at something else.
Not only has Clinton been riding her husband's coattails during this whole "experience" kick she's on, but she's even riding Obama's. Check the video.
Commentator: "So what about this Farrakhan stuff?"
Obama: "I think he's an anti-Semite and I want nothing to do with him."
Commentator: "So you like Jews."
Hillary: "Eh! Eh! I like Jews, too! I like Jews more! .....I guess yeah, whatever. What he said."
Come on. Watching the two of them in a debate is just... well, it's not even fair. Obama is called out on something (like the fact that when Hillary's campaign wanted him to release his tax returns he did, even though she herself refused to do it), he cleans house. Hillary then either tries to jump on the wagon to claim some of that luster for herself, or she tries to quibble on a weird little nothing point in order to claim some scrap of victory. (If you don't believe that's her motivation, check her little "good!" after he concedes this silly point and states that he'll reject and denounce. She said that like she'd just won something.)
All I can do is mirror that incredulous smile that Obama gave her and think, "What. She just did that. Does she even have campaign advisors, and if so... whose bright idea was it to let her out unsupervised?"
Watching her debate, I have to wonder who's convinced by this. I have to wonder who watches her bungling as badly as Bush ever did (in message if not in syntax) and thinks "Yes, I want this person to be the voice of my nation to the world." I have to wonder who watches her struggle to hide hypocrisy and pettiness and backsliding and thinks "I trust this woman with the future of my nation."
Who are these people?
Hillary Clinton, I reject and denounce your campaign.
Obama and Clinton Debate on MSNBC
Okay. So aside from the Denounce/Reject issue (whose hilarity is self-evident and glorious to behold), let's look at something else.
Not only has Clinton been riding her husband's coattails during this whole "experience" kick she's on, but she's even riding Obama's. Check the video.
Commentator: "So what about this Farrakhan stuff?"
Obama: "I think he's an anti-Semite and I want nothing to do with him."
Commentator: "So you like Jews."
Hillary: "Eh! Eh! I like Jews, too! I like Jews more! .....I guess yeah, whatever. What he said."
Come on. Watching the two of them in a debate is just... well, it's not even fair. Obama is called out on something (like the fact that when Hillary's campaign wanted him to release his tax returns he did, even though she herself refused to do it), he cleans house. Hillary then either tries to jump on the wagon to claim some of that luster for herself, or she tries to quibble on a weird little nothing point in order to claim some scrap of victory. (If you don't believe that's her motivation, check her little "good!" after he concedes this silly point and states that he'll reject and denounce. She said that like she'd just won something.)
All I can do is mirror that incredulous smile that Obama gave her and think, "What. She just did that. Does she even have campaign advisors, and if so... whose bright idea was it to let her out unsupervised?"
Watching her debate, I have to wonder who's convinced by this. I have to wonder who watches her bungling as badly as Bush ever did (in message if not in syntax) and thinks "Yes, I want this person to be the voice of my nation to the world." I have to wonder who watches her struggle to hide hypocrisy and pettiness and backsliding and thinks "I trust this woman with the future of my nation."
Who are these people?
Hillary Clinton, I reject and denounce your campaign.