Oh-eight (D): New anti-Hillary YouTube

Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:10 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democrats

Here’s another article noting how the Democrats seem to be shifting their language on abortion. While the party hasn't necessarily shifted its position, there appears to be more tolerance (at least among congressional Democrats) of divergent abortion views. The GOP has a good chance of nominating a pro-choice Republican, but there's not a single pro-life Democrat running for president. But given this shift, are we a cycle or two away from that? There are a handful of Dem governors who are pro-life.

The Columbia State previews Obama, Edwards and Clinton speaking to College Democrats at the University of South Carolina. Obama speaks today, Edwards tomorrow and Clinton on Saturday.

CLINTON:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D) endorsement of Clinton got a package on the LA local news when the two senators sat down for a satellite interview with KABC. It was mostly positive, but toward the end the local reporter asked Clinton and Feinstein about the extramarital affair story that has been haunting LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. According to the reporter, Clinton stood by the mayor and said he'd remain as one of her national co-chairs. DiFi apparently got "testy" with reporters that the subject was brought up in this venue. Feinstein: "It's interesting to me that the press asks those questions. I mean here is a candidate running for president of the United States. Antonio Villaraigosa is the mayor of Los Angeles. And both of us will always work with him. His personal life is something else and leave it out of that." See their joint interview here.

There was a time when many of us thought the first woman to be elected either president or vice president was Feinstein.

Also, another anti-Clinton YouTube is making the rounds, pointing out the possible 28 years of Bush-Clinton rule -- in addition to bids by Jeb, Chelsea, and then the Bush twins. “It’s time for a regime change,” the YouTube concludes. “Don’t vote Hillary.”

EDWARDS: In his speech on tax policy today, Edwards will “declare war” on offshore tax havens, as well as call for an end to the loophole that allows hedge fund and private equity managers to treat most of their income as capital gains. Per excerpts of his speech, “[T]he people with power aren’t going to give it up without a fight. And we can’t sit down with them and make a deal. We can’t triangulate our way to big change; we can’t compromise our way to big change – we need to lead the way to big change. And that starts with me being specific, clear and honest about what I’m going to do… It’s time to stop promoting the wealth of the wealthy and to start making sure that every American who works hard has the chance to move up the economic ladder.”

Edwards will give an interview to CNBC later today on his tax policy.

Forget advocating for universal health care or calling potentially for higher taxes, there's NOTHING riskier for a presidential candidate than appearing in Spandex. Edwards rode with Lance Armstrong yesterday for a leg of Iowa's famed bike race, RAGBRAI. "The famously well-coiffed candidate was sweaty after about a dozen miles," the Des Moines Register reports, "but there was no evidence of helmet hair."

Also: "Armstrong said he invited all the presidential candidates to ride on RAGBRAI with him but so far Edwards was the only one who took him up on it. Democrat Joe Biden’s wife, Dr. Jill Biden, was also scheduled to ride today and Republican Mitt Romney's sons are riding Friday. Democrat Chris Dodd will have an event on the route in Dyersville on Friday."

OBAMA:

While the campaign billed a major "national" addition to his campaign yesterday, it turns out the major addition is a "New Hampshire" in nature -- not national. Freshmen Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes becomes the highest-ranking Dem officeholder in New Hampshire to endorse, and he's backing Obama.

The Chicago Tribune examines Obama’s fundraising network, and it finds that despite the small-donor hype, there's a significant big donor network as well, complete with bundlers. "Half the fundraisers live in just three metropolitan regions that are seats of financial or political power: Washington, New York and Chicago. Obama's home base of Chicago accounts for the largest proportion of the large fundraisers, about a fifth, according to a Tribune analysis."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Who in Illinois cares who (or what) the LA Mayor has sex with? And what does this question have to do with a national election? Would this question be asked if the person sitting there had a last name other than Clinton? The reporter who asked this question needs to get a life.

Dave, Matteson, IL (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:23 AM)

I agree with DiFi (love that name!) that the question was irrelevant. I echo what Dave said above - who in Iowa cares who the LA Mayor has sex with? Is this a red-button issue of which I am not aware?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:42 AM)

"Pro-Life" is a misnomer. Politicians who want to make abortion illegal, jeopardizing women's lives, are modern day Pharisees, moralizing hypocrites who enjoy judging other people. People who want to make abortion illegal think pregnancy is an appropriate "punishment" for the sin of being a woman. They are not "Pro-Life" they are Pro-I'm Holy Than Thou-ists. I challenge anyone with this position to go to your state's sex offender website, look at these men, and ask yourself if you would force a thirteen year old girl to carry their child.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:05 AM)

I agree any body but Clinton or Bush or any clone of the two. We need new blood and new vision in washington. SOS is not helping this country move forward.

TEC-SPRING-TX (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:13 AM)

LOL, now if we can get Hillary in spandex, like John Kerry dressed up like an oompa loompa at NASA in 2004, then we will have our moment. If Bill Clinton only had Villaraigosa's taste in women, he could really be a popular president LOL. Dianne feinstein is damamged goods; resigning from the committee that oversees military contracts because those contracts she awarded went to a company part-owned by her husband. The GOP would rip her to shreds if she was the vice president nominee. It is still under investigation and she may well have her Duke Cunningham moment. And to answer dave and Carrie; it has a lot to do with the campaign. Allegedly, President Bush is guilty of all these so-called crimes. Do you want YOUR president to be torn to shreds starting January 21 2009?

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:13 AM)

I agree Amy..but a more appropriate arguement would be they want to use the power of government to imprison doctors for the procedure. There is no mention of abortion or when life begins in the constitution. I think it should be a state issue on limits of late term abortion(when it is apparent a mother can safely give child birth) but not putting people in jail. Conservatives abandoned their small gov stance as soon as they adopted that position...slippery slope.

CJ (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:24 AM)

Right on Amy!

juan,ft lauderdale,fl (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:32 AM)

Pro-Choice is a misnomer. People that are Pro-Choice are only for abortion, nothing else. No choice on schools (liberals say no to vouchers), no choice on owning and carrying a gun (liberals say 'Guns bad, must ban now'), no choice on health care (liberals want the goverment to run it).

Pro-choice to liberals really means No-Choice, except for abortions.

BClinton said abortions should be "Safe, Legal, Rare"
I guess two of three ain't bad.

"and ask yourself if you would force a thirteen year old girl to carry their child."

Good point. But, what did the child have to say about it?

Allison (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:36 AM)

I think its funny that NEO-RATS (Democrats)choose to ignore issues of morality.

Steve P., Phoenix,AZ. (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:01 AM)

Amy - I try (but don't often succeed) to avoid using the pro-life label. I prefer anti-choice. That's what it is essentially about to me. It's not that one side adovcates life and the other advocates death. It's not that one side advocates abortion and the other side does not. One side says "let women choose" and the other side says "let government choose"...which I find highly ironic since those who want government invovled in this most private of decisions are also most typically the ones who complain about how the government is too big and meddles too much into our lives. Ah, the smell of hypocrisy.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:04 AM)

Carrie, you are foolish. The abortion issue can be solved if the people and politicians would take their head out of their ass. My solution is to provide the
5 year birth control implant (under the skin) be made freely available for women which would significantly lower the rate of abortions due to unwanted pregnacies. Then perhaps, the country can get beyond this social issue once and for all.

Steve P., Phoenix,AZ. (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:13 AM)

Steve P you support government regulation of morality?

CJ (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:14 AM)

Steve P even that would be met with significant resistance by those who consider birth prevention nearly the same as abortion and it'd still be an issue. But that would be a good option for some states to consider if they choose.

CJ (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:16 AM)

Carrie, I respect your view point, but a question. Other then abortion, where else is the 'choice' in Pro-Choice? As stated previously, the liberal position is only Pro-Choice for abortion, and little else.

Pro-Life is on a different plane then government choice rather then individual choice. One is the turnover of Roe-Wade. Not to make abortions illegal, but to put the decisions back to the people and not just the courts. It is not about making abortions illegal, it is about having a system in place where the Rare part is added to the Safe and Legal parts. I really believe this is a common goal of the two camps.

Making the statement "abortions will be illegal" is not true (I'm not referencing you with this statement, I realize you didn't make it. It's my own strawman to make a point). Abortions will never be made illegal, it just would not be accepted.

Hypocrisy is a two way street here. Generalizations are seldom good, but, the Left wants the government involved with everything except abortions, while the Right wants the government to be not involved with anything except abortions.
.

Allison (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:32 AM)

CJ- I think Steve P would agree with a heck of a lot of what fundamentalist Islamics believe. Also- if the Religions Right insists on clamoring for politicians to vote 'their way', I say that's ok, but then it's time to revoke the tax exepmt status their churches enjoy.

Buzz (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:41 AM)

Abortion was made a federal issue by the Supreme Court in their poorly thought out Roe v. Wade opinion. There is no constitutional right to an abortion. It should be left to the states. Cali, NY and other places would always have legal abortions. The so-called Conservative Heartland wouldn/t. But it ain't a federal issue.

Bruce, NV (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:55 AM)

A lot of African-American churches, where politians speak regularly, will also be affected when the tax exempt status is revoked. Last look, the AA block of votes 90% for the left.

Mickey (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:01 PM)

Allison,
In many states, hospitals are required to offer the Morning After Pill to women seeking treatment for rape. However, a woman won't be given that choice in the more "Pro-Life" states and some "Pro-Life" pharmicists will refuse to fill prescriptions for it.
Bush's administration blocked allowing women to get the pill without a prescription. Morning After Pills...one step in making abortions rarer, but their use blocked because its "murder" to prevent an hours old fertilzed egg to implant in a woman's uterus.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:02 PM)

Allison-- your argument falls flat and is so wrong.

Not only does the Right want to tell us how to Die, they also want to spy on us without warrants (another privacy issue) and you're forgetting that the right wants to place an Amendment in the Constitution preventing gays from receiving legal rights (and do much more at the state level).

The Left wants the government OUT of bedrooms and hospital rooms. The Right wants Tom Delay at our bedsides telling us how to talk, how to give birth, who to marry, how to have sex, and when we can die.

WAKE UP

Gary, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:25 PM)

if you are one of wealthy elite who has been having the wage earning american pay your share of taxes, edwards should scare hell out of ya

MK,MO (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:54 PM)

Gary,

The discussion is which side of the political spectrum allows more personal choice then the other. My claim is it is the Right, with noted exceptions.

Privacy issues are important, but not quite sure how it involves an individual being allowed to making personal decisions. It looks like something else is leaking into the conversation. I would expect you are talking about the Patriot Act. Once again, important, but not sure how it fits in this discussion.

Not sure what Tom Delay is doing in your bedroom. You may want to change the locks and see if that helps. Please tell him hi from me next he stops by.

If you want to die, there is no limit for the methods on how you can accomplish the task. There are quite a few rules on someone helping you out though, ask Jack Kevorkian for details. The line between murder and assisted-suicide is blury right now, hense the laws. The only government intervention if you choose this route will be by the people sent out to pick up the body. It is always helpful to them if you leave a note with instructions for your disposal.

Allison (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:21 PM)

Buzz, What are you talking about. I am not religious at all so how does my suggesting we make the 5 year birth control implant available to women for free come under the Religous Right? If you are referring to Morality I am talking about common sense and knowing the difference between RIGHT and WRONG.

Steven P., Phoenix,AZ. (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:25 PM)

Still counting the days, jerry. A few weeks ago, I noted that your tactic (like they did to Kerry and Gore) is to only comment negatively on Dems, rather than making any positive comments on Repubs. You responded that I was wrong and that I needed to go read more of your posts. Therefore, been sitting and waiting. Your posts are my own best evidence in support of my statement some weeks back. You are truly sad, and you are an embarassment to true, intelligent and thoughtful Republicans.

jjg, ms (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:29 PM)

MK, MO: The wealthy elite pay 95% of the taxes in this country. Quit spreading lies. The poor and middle class pay virtually nothing

Bruce, NV (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:31 PM)

Sorry Gary, The left has done really well now haven't they? The Left wants big government to tell you what to think and how to think. Look at the lack of respect people have for each other these days. This is because the left has made everyone a victim and not responsible for their own actions. The real goal on the Left is to put in place a type of Socialism.

Steven P., Phoenix,AZ. (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:34 PM)

What makes me sad about abortion is that it shouldn't be an issue that divides parties. It should be something that people think is wrong no matter what their beliefs are about anything else,be it gay marriage or war or illegal immigration. The reason Democrats don't like this war is because they feel like the troops are dying for nothing. But isn't it the same with unborn babies? Don't they die in vain when a woman gets pregnant and decides they don't want the child? A rape is obviously a very horrible thing,but to kill a child that results from a pregnancy only makes the situation worse. A 13 year old girl does not have to keep the baby,she can give it up for adoption.It just really saddens me that people think it's ok to abort, and I guess you can tell yourself that it's just a fetus and it's not actually a child,but I think deep down everyone knows better. And besides,the 'fetus' excuse doesn't hold up with partial birth abortion. What is their excuse as to why it's ok then?

Marie-Gulf Shores,AL (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:17 PM)

Bruce - And because there will be states that won't allow it, there will be women that die attempting to get one, just as there were before it was made legal.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:29 PM)

Hillary, Obama and Richardson are done for...
pandering to racists means they are unfit for office.

They are a bunch of left wing totalitarian Che Guevarians...

NH (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:30 PM)

Allison - If you notice, many people who are Pro Choice say they would not choose to have an abortion themselves, but they believe that all women should have the right to make that decision for themselves. Keeping abortion legal gives them a choice in whether they have one. If abortion is not an available option, then they won't have that as a choice. Sure, they can choose to give it up for adoption, but are you prepared to ask a woman who has been brutally raped to carry her rapists child for 9 months? I'm not. I'm also not prepared to ask a teenager who was molested by a family member to do it. I'm not prepared to ask anyone to do it, actually. Who am I to make that decision for them?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:33 PM)

jjg---spoken like a true liberal. Only difference is that nobody has done anything stupid on my side yet. Plus your side just has so much ammunition to the debate, kind of hard not to notice. I wonder why the liberal press has been hard at it on the democratic runners and not as hard charging against my side?

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:18 PM)

"Allison - If you notice, many people who are Pro Choice say they would not choose to have an abortion themselves, but they believe that all women should have the right to make that decision for themselves. Keeping abortion legal gives them a choice in whether they have one."

In that sense, we agree. The movement should be to reduce the number of abortions. And, just like with many other things in our lives, there will restrictions. Are you away of your options, do you know what servies are available to you, did you consider adoption, did you think about this long enough, who is your support team to help you both physically and mentally, okay this isn't good so lets see how we can prevent this from happening again in the future, are you sure you understand the ramifications of an abortion both to the fetus (duh!) and to you and your family (long term psycological issues).

Kind of how it is now is you make an appointment, and its same day service, problem "solved".

No one is telling anyone they can't do it. That would be making it illegal, and I do not believe that will happen. If you still choose to go ahead with the abortion, then you've made your choice. No one is stopping you.

Allison (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:03 PM)

Allison, You don't know what you are talking about. Have you gone to your state's sex offender website and looked at the men pictured there? Trust me, these guys aren't Brad Pitt. You haven't replied to my point regarding the Morning After Pill because making it widely available would deprive you of the opportunity to feel morally superior to other women.

Who are you to ridicule women choosing to terminate their pregnancies? Obviously, you don't approve of their choice, but you know what? Its none of your damn business.

Amy B Portland, Me (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:40 PM)

Here's the whole truth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

Haste, Atlanta, GA (Sent Friday, July 27, 2007 7:18 AM)

Villagarosa has other worries,as does Feinstein. Namely,the total failure on the portion of the Democrat-dominated city and county to keep the heat on gangs whose killings have now made Ramadi,Iraq, safer than the Compton-Watts-Pico Rivera Triangle. Worse for Antonio,a report released to The Urban League,and the NAACP is observing a horrific trend occurring in South Central LA. Ethnic cleansing of African Americans by latino gangs,in a block-by-block campaign of murder and racial intimidation that the Mayor has been helpless to stem. While arguments for and against this trend continue,the murder rate has now escalated beyond the daily rate now suffered in many Iraqi towns and cities outside of Baghdad. As with the Sunnis/Shias in that region,vast areas of LA are virtual ''no-go''regions for blacks and latinos. What Tinseltown,just up the road, is doing regarding this human rights tragedy is at present, unknown. Jolie may Go To Darfur. She will not step foot in Compton. According to the states Democrat AG, Bill Lockyer, nearly 75% of the states murders are now occuring in LA County. Then too, Gov.Schwarzenegger[R] has also largely been ignoring the issue.

also see:The Los Angeles Times Jul.27,2007-''The Roots Of Latino/black Anger''.

Lee Holmes (Sent Friday, July 27, 2007 7:53 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=291865