RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Obama Loves You Back

By Amie Newman, RH Reality Check

February 6, 2008 - 12:08am

Published under: | | | | | |
Amie Newman's blog | Printer-friendly version |
Amie Newman's picture

"We don't have to be divided by race or gender...Our time has come."

Barack Obama is giving a speech at his headquarters in Chicago and in true Obama style is inspiring his supporters as much at 11pm on the close of a day that will easily go down in history as he did at the dawn of this day. When a supporters yells to Obama that she loves him, without missing a beat he yells, "I love you back!"

And with California polls just having closed and Obama and Clinton in a head to head race for delegates that is incredibly close, today has truly lived up to its "super" status. Clinton is leading on the Democrats side in California right now with only 10% of precincts reporting. John McCain is leading the Republican pack, with Romney in second place.*

The age gap is alive and kicking. Clinton has easily won the support of voters 60 years and older across the country while Obama brought out the younger voters, 18-29 years old in droves. Meanwhile, black voters - 8 out of 10 of them - voted for Obama.

As I put my young children to bed this evening, listening to Hillary Clinton speak at her headquarters, I drew a breath. I told my children that they were listening to an amazing moment in political history. A woman has never come this far. An African-American man has never come this far. We have already won - all of us - Americans everywhere have won.

And here's a quick recap of the states won and lost thus far before I sign off myself:

Clinton has won: Arkansas, Tennessee, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma

Obama has won: Georgia, Colorado, Illinois, Utah, Minnesota, Connecticut, Kansas, Alabama, Idaho, North Dakota and Delaware

*California has been called for Hillary Clinton and John McCain though the delegate count won't be known until tomorrow at some point.

Not yet able to call for the Demorats yet: Arizona, Missouri, California

Total delegates awarded thus far today: Obama - 211 awarded Clinton - 206 delegates awarded

Popular votes - 100,000 popular vote difference between Obama and Clinton.


Amie Newman's blog | Printer-friendly version |
. . . . .
7 comments
Very concerned about Obama and choice
After reading Obama's answers to the RH Reality Check questionnaire yesterday (late, I know), I am extremely concerned about one of his answers (I have misgivings about one or two others, but this one really jumped out at me). In response to the question: "Does Senator Obama support any restrictions on abortion, or does he believe it should be entirely up to the woman?" his answer was: "Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade." Sen. Obama was a Constitutional Law professor. Surely he knows that the Supreme Court has held that a host of restrictions are compatible with Roe v. Wade. This answer is a far cry from affirming a belief in the Constitutionally grounded right to privacy and personal autonomy. To say the least. Elsewhere in the questionnaire Sen. Obama states that he opposes the Hyde amendment and opposes parental consent without a bypass. We don't know where he stands on other restrictions that the Supreme Court has found consistent with Roe, such as bans on certain procedures, mandatory waiting periods, and so on. Furthermore, we get no indication that Sen. Obama would make reproductive rights and programs that promote reproductive health and gender equality in the U.S. and around the world a priority. Many of us know from direct experience that when you have reproductive rights or health bill or other legislative matter, there are certain Congressional offices you approach first because you know they make these issues a priority. Senator Clinton's office has been of them; Senator Obama's has not. Sen. Obama's answers to the RH Reality Check questionnaire do nothing to allay my fears. It seems to me that while there are other reasons why a person might decide to prefer Sen. Obama over other candidates, with regard to reproductive health and women's rights, he has not proven himself to be a candidate we can trust.
Submitted by Ciccina on February 6, 2008 - 9:27am.
There are certainly
tangibles that we can point to with Senator Clinton in regards to her advocacy on behalf of reproductive rights thus far. Clinton has not just been a supporter but a leader in the fight for reproductive justice. Senator Obama has voted pro-choice and his rhetoric has matched Clinton's on these issues. It is true, however, that Obama has much less to point to, in terms of accomplishments and support, with regards to HIV prevention and treatment, comprehensive sexuality education, abortion rights, access to contraception, global reproductive health access and more. If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee it certainly will be incumbent upon reproductive health advocates to ensure that he steps up on behalf of these issues and shows us how he will support access to care, ensure that rights are not trampled upon and that he will be a president who will prioritize reproductive health funding in his budget.
Submitted by Amie Newman on February 6, 2008 - 1:00pm.
Ridiculous to be "very concerned" about Obama & Choice
As a feminist, the father of two teenage daughters and the son of a mother who almost died from an illegal abortion in 1940, I believe as strongly as anyone that abortion is a woman's right. From my perspective, based on a reading of Obama's perfectly sound answers to the Roe question as well as his legislative record, it is gross hyperbole and even sounds a bit like fabrication to jump to express being "very concerned" about Obama and reproductive choice. Hogwash! Obama has a record and a commitment that shows that he will protect the reproductive freedom of women better than, or at least as well as Hillary Clinton, . . . and he will do it without the need to bomb women in Iraq and Iran to pander to neo-con militarists and without the need to pass out morning-after pills to White House interns. The bottom line has to be that being pro-choice is simply not enough. Peace, personal responsibility and reproductive freedom are all required. Feminists and progressives that demand less (as Hillary has done with Bill) will find that their conduct will lead to the kind of divisions in this country that elect Presidents who will appoint Justices to reverse Roe.
Submitted by Gary Mitchell on February 6, 2008 - 2:27pm.
Obama will trust women
to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions. While I'd love to see Hillary win, she just carries too much political baggagge to beat McCain (or as one writer commented: McCain/Huckabee)! Obama will be harder for the Republican attack machine to smear, and I feel any attempts to "swiftboat" him on race and religion will certainly cause disgust and a voter backlash.
Submitted by ruthless on February 6, 2008 - 2:34pm.
I want proof
Ruthless, I respect your opinion, but as a long-time women's rights and choice activist I have seen our issues thrown overboard in the name of compromise too many times. The typical modus operandi is for a politician to say he's pro-choice, but then in the clinch agree to set aside our issues and concerns, or decide to not pursue our priorities, because they are too "controversial." I want proof, not inference. We've been burned many, many times before.
Submitted by Ciccina on February 6, 2008 - 3:04pm.
I can't do that,
it's all virgin territory here. But I feel it is more important to get a Democrat into the White House. We can't take another four years of Republican incompetence. At the very least, Obama will be more motivated to listen to women's concerns about reproductive justice than McCain. The latter will just throw our interests under a bus in favor of courting the evangelical base. If that sounds like I'm planning to vote for someone who isn't perfect over someone who IS perfect, but is too polarizing, than so be it. Because a Republican in the White House will be a disaster for women and our civil rights.
Submitted by ruthless on February 7, 2008 - 2:35pm.
Obama and choice - real concerns
Gary, with all due respect, it is not hyperbole to be concerned about this statement. As a constitutional law professor, Obama would know exactly what this statement means - there are a range of restrictions he might possibly support. Obama, to my knowledge, has not gone on record on a number of choice issues. There are a number of prominent and not-so-prominent feminists out there who are making the case that Obama is excellent on these issues. I want to get at some hard evidence. If its there, great. If its not, that's a problem (or should be) for self-proclaimed feminists. If they are basing their endorsements on the hope that he'll be good on these issues, rather than the record, I want to know. As I stated before, the question I raise is where he really stands on choice, not Iraq, Iran or marital fidelity (though it really is a low blow to tarnish Hillary with that; she is not the one who cheated and I don't see why she should be punished for it. McCain's wife Cindy had a problem with drugs and embezzlement - which she publicly acknowledged - but no one says McCain shouldn't be in the White House because we can trust Cindy). And - because I can feel this comment coming - no I'm not in the employ of any candidate or any organization supporting a candidate, nor am I related to anyone on a candidate's payroll. ;-)
Submitted by Ciccina on February 6, 2008 - 2:41pm.