Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

It’s easy to conclude that the outlandish vitriol spewed against President Obama is steeped in racism. The hate speech, so-called “birthers,” who defy reason and the advent of the Tea Party seem totally out of proportion to anything Obama could possibly have done in such a short time.

As a white southerner, I can’t help thinking it boils down to race. The predominantly white Tea Party crowd simply cannot stand it that an African-American is President. Their security and sense of the world hinges on being superior to people of color.

I thought it was that simple until a friend reminded me of Whitewater, Vince Foster and, of course, the impeachment which boiled down to the treasonous act of lying about sex. (If so, who among us has not committed treason?).

Today’s lack of civility may very well be about racism but I think it’s far better understood as the Right’s typical MO when they lose. It’s ironic, too, given their outcry during the debacle that was Election 2000. Remember the Sore/Loserman bumper stickers. In typical bullying language, the Right called Gore and Lieberman voters “sore losers” and “cry babies.” Can’t you just see them on the playground, sticking their tongues out?

In Election 2000, the Right was angry because Gore wanted all votes counted. It seems like ancient history at this point but just imagine for a minute what the last decade would have been like if the right-leaning US Supreme Court would have allowed the votes to be counted. It’s an exercise in futility but it does give one pause.

So when the Right loses they concoct new conspiracies, turn up their hate-mongers and form a new movement. Contrast this to the mostly idle threat of left-leaning voters to “leave the country” if their opponent wins. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard this in 2004.

What’s different this season is how far the attacks have drilled down to the local level. For the last week or so, media has covered the increasingly vicious ads aimed at state legislative candidates. Like the sexist attack on NC Senator Margaret Dickson featured today on CNN as one of the nastiest attack ads of the 2010 Election.

Then there’s the baseless mailer calling Democrats weak on crime for passing the Racial Justice Act has drawn fire from several directions. Tom Fetzer, North Carolina’s own Roger Ailes,  even apologized for using it in Democratic Majority Leader Hugh Holliman’s district.  He apologized, that is, if you buy the line, “I apologize if anyone was offended.” Of course, the outcry didn’t stop Fetzer’s team from sending the piece to other districts.  

I suppose if you can’t talk real issues, you make them up. I don’t see the Right talking about how they are chomping at the bit to take control of women’s reproductive freedom. That might not sit well with their smaller government crowd. Why, yes, we think the government has every right to make reproductive health care decisions for women.

I also don’t see them talking about their desire to do away with the anti-bullying bill they so viciously fought last legislative session. Why don’t they tell their voters about how they stood on the NC House floor and fought vehemently against requiring schools to protect every child? 
 

I guess it’s naïve to expect truth in advertising in an election season. The same thing can be said about civility.  And, it’s too bad. Too bad for voters and too bad for the issues that really matter.

I’ve done my share of Obama bashing. He has driven me nuts in his total unwillingness to protect and defend reproductive freedom—a core value to his political base. But, enough is enough.

The alternative, my friend, is sheer insanity. Just check out the winner of last night’s Republican primary in Delaware to see for yourself.

Obama is far from perfect but he has delivered and it’s time we amplify his wins, especially for women.

Before Palin’s mama grizzlies, I always thought of myself as a mama bear when defending my young. So, I’ll match her grizzlies any day with my North Carolina black bear mama self and tell you why as a mother I am thankful to President Obama for health care reform.

First, I don’t know a mother on this planet who is not happy about being able to provide healthcare to her children through their 26th birthday. Most of us know how precarious our health coverage was between college and our first decent job.

Who among us did not go without dental care or an annual Pap smear in our early twenties? My own souvenir from that period is a crown I was forced to get after a cavity went beyond redemption during my grad school, no health insurance days. So, thank you, Mr. President, for letting me keep my kids covered until they can stand on their own professional feet.

No one plans to get sick, especially with a chronic or debilitating illness, but it happens every day. And, if you or your family has to stay in the hospital longer than you’d ever imagined, no insurance company can say, too bad, you’ve reached your annual limit. No more of those, thanks to President Obama.

If your worst nightmare comes true and you or a loved one becomes paralyzed or dependent on expensive medical treatments to live, no insurance company can deny you coverage because you’ve reached some arbitrary maximize lifetime limit. Thank you, Mr. President.

Every one who has ever had a child knows how vulnerable a parent feels when their child hurts. Imagine being told your health insurance will not cover your child because her condition existed before you changed jobs and got a new plan. Healthcare reform did away with pre-existing conditions for children.  Thanks again, Mr. President.

The benefits go on. I’ve said nothing about the millions of families who have no health insurance for whom health care reform means affordable, accessible care.

And, what does the opposition offer? Vows to fight abortion, to defend marriage discrimination, to build larger walls to keep immigrants out and to protect America’s richest 2% from paying taxes  Really? This is where America should be headed? No more bashing Obama for me, this is seriously wrong.

This month marks the 90^th Anniversary of women’s suffrage in the United States and it’s looking more and more like time for another Suffrage Parade.

In 1913, Alice Paul and friends organized the Suffrage Parade in Washington, DC. They were frustrated by slow, incremental progress in their fight to win the vote. On March 3, more than 5,000 suffragists hit the streets in support of a woman’s right to vote. The Suffrage Parade was timed to coincide with Woodrow Wilson’s Presidential inauguration. The suffragists wanted to send a clear message—they would hold Wilson accountable for women’s suffrage.

Of course, there were many mainstream supporters of women’s suffrage who discouraged demonstrations like the Suffrage Parade. These supporters clung to incremental change, believing that state by state, women would gain the right to vote. They didn’t want to rock the boat and, of course, they didn’t want to risk offending their friends in power.

More than ninety years later and we’re still having the same debate. How much rocking do we do when our friends are captaining the boat? If this last year is any measure, it’s time we start moving.

  Read the rest of this entry »

In case you missed the bipartisan Health Care Reform Summit yesterday, coverage of the six hour event made it seem that the Summit lived down to low expectations. You have to respect President Obama for trying and at least the conversation was civil. Still, it’s pretty difficult to see room for much progress to be made. This lack of progress has never been more evident than in women’s access to reproductive health care under the proposed legislation.

We recently learned that the President has joined Congress (including Congressional allies) in putting Women’s Health at stake in the name of Health Care Reform. President Obama’s Health Care Reform proposal accepts the Nelson Check Provision which contains extremely restrictive language around abortion from the Senate version of the bill which passed that chamber back in December.

See our post on the Nelson Provision for the details but, in a nutshell, the “Nelson Abortion Check Provision” effectively creates an abortion rider system where all individuals who purchase their health care coverage will be forced to write two premiums checks—one for their abortion coverage and one for everything else. This includes coverage of any abortion that is medically necessary.

Basically, if you want abortion coverage, the Nelson provision requires you pay for it separately from all other components of your health care coverage.

Read the rest of this entry »

With as much press as its gotten lately, I’m sure that most of you are probably familiar with the Stupak Amendment, the attachment to the House’s health care bill that would severely limit a woman’s right to choose.  If you want some of the history or explination, feel free to click here or here for Planned Parenthood’s analysis, or check out the links Mitchell posted in a previous blog entry.

I am, however, extraordinarily frustrated with the amendment, and not just because of the obvious reasons. Yes, it’s probably fairly clear that I am pro-choice and am, therefore, against limiting a woman’s access to abortion services, which this bill does in spades. And yes, I am concerned that insurance companies will use this amendment, should it become part of the final bill, to imposes restrictions on covering other services, including miscarriages (which, as this article points out, are referred to by medical professionals as “spontaneous abortions”).

But what bothers me most of all is that I just don’t understand why this is happening. As the president himself said, this is supposed to be a health care bill… not an abortion one. And the fact that this has suddenly morphed from a debate that needs to happen (i.e. the horrible state of health care in this country, especially compared to other comparable nations) into something strictly about reproductive rights. And here’s the thing: I don’t see any real way for reproductive rights to win this one, now that the bill has passed the House.

Should the Senate pass its health care bill (which is an “if,” especially if the threatened filibuster by Joe Lieberman actually occurs) and not include a version of the Studak Amendment (which is another “if,” as at least one senator is now talking about including some version of it), the bill has to go to a conference committee… and, at this point, various pro-choice Democrats in the House have said they will not vote for this bill out of conference committee if the language remains (which is probably about the same number of conservative Democrats who wouldn’t vote for the bill if the language is taken out).

In either event, of course, this would effectively kill any health care reform that may happen.

So it seems that we’ve been forced into making a horrible choice… we can either sacrifice the first real step this country has taken towards health care reform in many, many years (we can debate whether or not the change is far enough, but that’s an argument for another day)… or we can sacrifice accessibility to abortion services for women who might need it. And the people who are going to make this decision won’t be affected by it in the least. Why did the House Democratic leadership let this happen? And, other than his middle of the road statements in the above link, where is President Obama on all of this? Where is the advocate that we were promised? (A question I seem to be asking of Obama a lot lately.)

Whether this whole thing started because of personal beliefs or political grandstanding is up for debate. But it seems clear to me that there’s a very good possibility that it’s going to end in a way that’s going to be detrimental to a lot of women. And what are we going to have to show for it? Legislation that expands access to insurance, yet limits its services? That’s not the change that I want. And it’s not the change that we deserve.