WSJ's Kirkpatrick baselessly claimed Clinton "moved right" on abortion, health care
On the February 17 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report, Wall Street Journal editorial page deputy editor Melanie Kirkpatrick declared that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has "moved to the right on abortion" and "also moved right on health care," but she offered no evidence to support these assertions. In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, Clinton has been a consistent supporter of abortion rights throughout her political career. The Chicago Tribune also noted recently that Clinton "has made health care coverage for all a central theme" of her campaign for the Democratic nomination for president.
Critics often cite Clinton's views on reproductive choice as an example of her repositioning. For instance, CBS News contributor Gloria Borger* has described Clinton as purportedly shifting her rhetoric about abortion in a "transparent" effort to recover the so-called "values vote." And MSNBC host Chris Matthews accused Clinton of "trying to play it safe" on the issue by taking a "poll-tested path." Matthews pointed to her assertion in a July 25, 2006, speech that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" as an example of her purportedly changing position on the issue. But far from representing a point of departure from earlier statements, Clinton's 2006 remarks were consistent with those she made in a January 22, 1999, speech. While first lady, she said: "But all too often, generally because of the loudest voices, the American people don't hear explained the efforts that we're engaged in to continue to work with people from all different walks of life to make abortion safe, legal, and rare."
Other media figures, such as Fox News congressional correspondent Major Garrett, have claimed that in a January 24, 2005, speech, Clinton "appeared to soften her historically hard-line defense of current abortion law by praising the role that religious faith has played in promoting teen abstinence." But while Clinton did praise religion and teen abstinence in the speech and described abortion as "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," she at no point backed away from her defense of abortion rights and reiterated her support for keeping abortion legal. Referring to the Putting Prevention First Act (H.R. 4192), Clinton said: "It provides a roadmap to the destination of fewer unwanted pregnancies -- to the day when abortion is truly safe, legal, and rare." Moreover, as Media Matters noted, in her 1996 book, It Takes a Village (Simon & Schuster), Clinton wrote, "I think we need to do everything in our power to discourage sexual activity and encourage abstinence."
Further, on January 27, the Tribune quoted Clinton stating that universal health care would be a central theme to her presidential bid:
"One of the goals that I will be presenting ... is health insurance for every child and universal health care for every American," Clinton said on Sunday. "That's a very major part of my campaign."
From the February 17 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report:
GIGOT: So assuming that she needs to do this -- that is, move left on the war to win the Democratic presidential nomination -- it's going to hurt her in the general election potentially, if she gets it?
KIRKPATRICK: Oh -- yeah, absolutely. It's just another example, as [Journal editorial page deputy editor] Dan [Henninger] is suggesting, of her lacking the courage of her convictions. She's moved to the right on abortion, she's -- to the extent that no one less than Kate Michelman is supporting John Edwards instead of the female candidate.
GIGOT: Former head of the National Abortion Rights [Action] League [now NARAL Pro-Choice America].
KIRKPATRICK: Yes. And she's also moved right on health care and so, the question has to arise among the voters' minds: What does she stand for?
GIGOT: All right, thanks, Melanie.
Here's an idea...the thinking segment of the population needs to get active and take abortion out of the political mix. The Troglodytes have successfully used it as a political football because they are so well organized. Enough already; it's time to take it off the table.
How do you propose we do that, Nerzog?
Good question. Somehow, the moderates and liberals need to get as organized and as passionate as the Troglodytes are. How do we do it? I haven't a clue. It may never happen, but the only way to stop the runaway Fascist Express is to outvote them at the polls. This crap has gotten out of hand. Just yesterday, Gonzalez promised these people that he was going to set up a task force to protect their "religious freedom", as if that were even a real problem. With all the problems we have in this country, you have these bozos out there who think Gay marriage is still the biggest threat to America. GMAFB.
Holy crap, I thought you were kidding at first. With all the challenges facing America it's really great to see our nation's Attorney General attacking non-existent threats. How much longer until these bozos are gone?
As for abortion, it'll never be off the table. The anti-choice crowd won't be happy until wombs are subject to state control, and if they ever get their way, the wombs' previous owners (and non-womb-havers who value freedom) won't be happy.
I know. Ever see The Handmaid's Tale?
We'll never be rid of the Non-Thinkers...the best we can hope for is to outnumber them.
As for the glorious "First Freedom Task Force", one has to wonder if they'll be equally diligent in defending the religious rights of non-Christians. My suspicion is that it's just another bone to the Evangelicals to keep their minds off of the Crapfest in Iraq. The GOP has to keep them distracted for the next year or so.
I'm sure the Task Force will be every bit as considerate of non-Christian faiths as the Faith-Based Initiative people are. Every bit.
Gonzalez is desperately pandering to the Christofascists. Could he be losing...
GUANTANAMOMENTUM ?
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. How long ya been holding that one?
Since B.G. (Before Gravelocity)
MAKE NO MISTAKE, the rightwing's stance on abortion is that every woman in America be FORCED to carry to term any pregnancy they might have (from incest, rape, whatever), and that this carry-to-term mandate be enforced at the muzzle of state guns.
This is the "solution" forwarded by America's rightwing, because far from supporting freedom, far from wishing for a government that keeps out of people's personal lives, far from wishing for the maximization of individual liberty, they prefer a police state in support of government tyranny.
The rightwing claims that their desire for this governmental intrusion into the most personal issues of its citizens is for "MORAL" reasons, as they attempt to impose their own religious beliefs on others by force of law (and, ultimately, the guns of government enforcement).
THIS is the issue: Do we want freedom, or tyranny? The rightwing have made their wishes clear, and they underscore their desire by their position on other issues of personal freedom, specifically support for Bush on torture, the Patriot Act, "signing statements" by the executive, on and on.
What'll it be, America? Freedom, or tyranny by way of supporting Republicans?
Tex, don't forget!
These are the same people who will look you in the eye and say "learn from history". Newsflash - Rome didn't fall because of a decline in moral values in the working class population, it fell because of an overextended empire fueled by a huge military budget that put wealth into the hands of the cream of society - the same group of people that turned around and made all the decisions to keep expanding the Roman empire to fuel their greed.
Thanks for making that point, Snoopy. I've debated this with several Troglodytes over the years, and I love to point out that Rome was a Christian nation when it fell. That really pisses them off. I actually had one tell me, with a straight face, that the fall of all great civilizations has occured after they became too tolerant of gays. How do you reason with that level of ignorance?
Yeah, that is a problem. If only them spartans weren't so gay they would have beat the Thebans at the battle of Leuctra and would have maintained their supremacy in Greece. That's what happens when you wear a skirt to battle.
And Snoopy and Nerzog, don't show them any text books that say gays were not the cause of Rome's fall. Because obviously all text books are part of the EVIL HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!!!!
When not activily turning straight men gay, the sick agents of the EVIL HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA, spend many hours re-writting every book and altering history!
Help fight the EVIL HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA by not reading, don't drink Soy Milk (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327) and don't watch the Teletubies!
Democrats need to repeatedly drive home the point that abortion is too big of a money maker for the Republican Party. The evidence being that during the six years that Republicans held the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and a growing presence on the Supreme Court, they put forward no substantial legislation to repeal abortion. Just like gay marriage it’s an issue that gets them donations and votes.
She wasn't all that liberal on health care to start with. She was just posing for the cameras back in 1993, didn't come up with a workable plan either. Then she never brought the issue up since then. Did go about posing the cameras a lot more though. She certainly hasn't championed the cause in the meantime though.
The US needs a real socialized health care system. With just a fraction of the hundreds of billions these nutcases we call leaders dump into arms and war and militarism, we could have it easily. We already being taxed, it might as well get used on us for us, and not against others. "To promote the general welfare"....can anything be more meritous than providing medical security to the people? We'd be healthier people, as a nation we'd feel better. Good medicine.
If we're gonna get real health care, it won't be through the big two parties. They have shown a marked unwillingness to address this issue, except to roll back what little coverage already exists. But remember, this is our country. If they don't offer up full health care coverage to us on a silver platter this election, we vote for those who will.
I tend to agree. Iraq, national healthcare and alternative energy should be the top three issues in America today; not Abortion, gay marriage and nativity scenes.
You're absolutely right on health care; for what we've thrown down the rathole in Iraq, we could at least get a decent national healthcare plan off the ground. I think it's funny that the same people who piss and moan about their tax dollars going to help poor people seem to have no problem with their tax dollars being wasted in an elective, unnecessary war.
Ok MMFA is trying to propagandize here -
1. First Hillary said she supports parental notification with judicial backup (I remember watching tihs in the news)
2. Then she opposes the california proposition which WAS parental notification with judicial review.
3. Then she says the New York law should be the model, but the New York law has no parental notification.
5. Then she says that in states where it's the only option, then yes, she supports parental notification with judicial bypass.
Four different positions on the same issue.
Don't get me wrong I still like her but everyone needs to see the political game for what it is.
Once again...
Where are your sources? (BTW I saw it on the news one time, does not equal evidence. I once saw a talking horse on tv, does that mean all horses can talk?)
She's out regardless of this issue. Now that she's using Rove-like implications that other Dem candidates are soft on terror, she's exposed herself to be purely political.
http://www.nysun.com/article/41853?page_no=1
Shows she opposes parental notification in california, then down the article -
"Supporters of the measure contend that Mrs. Clinton's active involvement in a campaign taking place thousands of miles from New York undercuts an effort she made early last year to articulate a more centrist stance on abortion in advance of a possible presidential bid in 2008."
"
y negative reaction from the abortion rights lobby. While describing her history on the issue, she declared, "I supported parental notification with a judicial bypass," according to a report in the New York Times. She was referring to a parental notification law she supported in Arkansas and endorsed as recently as 1992.
After abortion rights advocates expressed concern that Mrs. Clinton was wavering on parental notification, which some on both sides of the debate view as a step toward additional restrictions on abortion, her aides said she thinks the best approach is a New York law that requires a briefing on medical options but no notification to parents."
Also - [link to www.nytimes.com] src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/a.gif" border="0" alt="A" width="33" height="33" align="left" />LBANY, Jan. 27 - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's recent remarks on abortion, in which she expressed support for parental notification laws, have provoked concern among some advocates of abortion rights, with one organization asking the senator to clarify her stance on such laws."
ahhh it feels good to be right. dont worry im still voting for her, they all play the same game of political football with these issues.
Oh and on your second link Roy, its more of the same.
As was said, New York's system is the best option. But in states where that is not feasible, than parental notificaiton, with a judical exemption (for those childern who can not talk to thier parents about it).
Its really pretty clear if you read the articles.
(Also, since when did it become a crime in government, to become better informed on a subject and change your opinion? Once die hard republican President Johnson, changed his mind about civil rights issues and helped change our country for the better.)
See the main issue Roy, is you are reading select quotes from the stories, without context or even misrepresenting what was said.
"Supporters of the measure contend that Mrs. Clinton's active involvement in a campaign taking place thousands of miles from New York undercuts an effort she made early last year to articulate a more centrist stance on abortion in advance of a possible presidential bid in 2008." -As quoted by Roy
What you left out was that the above quote is from a group in support of parental notification laws in Califronia. They believe Clinton was trying to be more moderate on abortion. When her stances, have been public for a long time (of btw they also made the quote while a little un-happy with Hillary, since she was working for the other side).
She did say that she respects the convictions of those opposed to abortion, that does not equal support for them.
Actually Roy, read the whole thing.
It does not say Hillary changed her positions. It is an article about what other people percieve as her position on the issue.
The pro-parental notification people listed her on their web site and claimed she supported them. And she did make the robo-calls against the measure.
Also ask yourself, what is different between the laws in Arkansas and the one in California? That's one thing people forget, the media skims the top of the issue, but never goes deeper than that. Why not ask her, if you believe she changed her mind? How are the laws different?
She stated as much, "parental notification with a judicial by-pass."
Sorry you don't win
A DIFFERENT MCCAIN:
Excellent point. The simplistic and disingenuous flap which the rightwing siezed upon with the Kerry presidential run was his statement, "I voted FOR the $43 million before I voted AGAINST it."
QUESTION for the even remotely honest: Was he talking about the SAME LEGISLATION? Identical wording, and he reversed his support? OR, was the legislation he voted FOR markedly different ... ENTIRELY different ... from that he later voted AGAINST?
The rightwing love to seize on "apparent" reversals, because this is what their simple-minded supporters understand. "He was FOR, then AGAINST. Huh huh! He's wacky!"
To be informed takes effort, and to understand the subtlety of the differences in proposed legislation can get tedious. ONE WORD can make a monumental difference in the effect of a law, yet the rightwing cannot deal with such nuance. Far better to stick with the "WITH us or WITH the terrorists" black-and-white portrayal of every issue. It makes things simple, and the more simple-minded, the better.
Which begs the question, is the GOP FOR Parental Notification of abortion, or AGAINST it? In complete control of our government for six solid years, where did they come down? That's right ... they DIDN'T. So much for figuring out where the Republic's stand.
WHAT DOES HILLARY STAND FOR?
Any American looking to the pages of the Wall Street Journal will not find an honest attempt to give this information.
As MMFA has demonstrated, Hillary's position on such issues as abortion has been consistent. Anyone in political journalism who made an effort to research and investigate the issue (or even was just paying minimal attention) would discover the consistent stance.
But that is the TRUTH, based on FACTS. The Wall Street Journal is interested in NEITHER of these things. Instead, they have a narrative to promote, and in Hillary's case, it is to portray her as indecisive, flip-flopping, a panderer, and inconsistent.
That is the narrative to promote, and the FACTS be damned. The WSJ isn't about INFORMING, or ANALYZING, it is about promoting a Point of View which is that of the rightwing. And it demands lying about all opposition candidates, those being Democrats in general and Hillary in particular.
Any idiot, any moron, any completely ignorant dope could state, "I don't know what Hillary stands for." The Wall Street Journal is supposed to KNOW these things, based on the record (as MMFA demonstrated), and impart this information to its readership.
Either this woman really DOESN'T know, and is too informationally limited to breathe, let alone work for a newspaper. Or she knows the truth, and chooses instead to LIE to her readership, hoping they will be fooled (i.e., "I'M confused about where Hillary stands, and so therefore so should YOU. I'm a reporter and should know, right?") In either event, she is making mockery of the sacred duty of a free press in America to give factual information to the public.
Why does the Wall Street Journal HATE America?
Has Media Matters now decided to make the top left corner the permanent home for defending Hillary Clinton's padering? Give it up. She isn't a progressive. This is becoming a campaign website for Hillary Clinton.
Steve:
As the lying, misinforming rightwing turn their attentions more and more towards smearing Hillary, there will be more "conservative" misinformation to report. As it become more clear that Hillary will be our next president, the rightwing character assassins will be working overtime, with phenomenal production of propaganda, which will keep MMFA busy correcting the record and exposing the lies.
"padering"? what's that mean?
Actually Steve, if you were a regular here you would know that MMFA does not endorse any one Democratic canidate. They just report misinformation, form the right wingers, about the canidates.
Right now they are busy attacking Hillary, a couple weeks ago it was Obama, next week it could be Edwards or whoever.
It just goes in waves.
A Liberal's Confession:
One must confess one's sins, to be forgiven. Hillary has indeed moved far to the right in respect to abortion! Why, it was only six years ago that she gave up on the position that all Repugnants should undergo mandatory abortion, and sterilization. Bill supposedly convinced her that she would eventually need some cross-over voters, to become President. So not only is she pandering to the lowest common denominator (think right-wing-nuts), but compromising her formerly valid position on this critical issue as well!
Smile, is it too late to begin?
Only if we can somehow make it retroactive - maybe 60 or so years?
Hey, if moving to the right on abortion and gay marriage is what it takes to get the corrupt corporate puppets out of office, I say let's do it. I guess every 30 to 40 years a bunch of poor women will have to be sacrificed so we remember why abortion was de criminalized. You see, the wealthy don't care wether abortion is legal or not, they will still have access to safe abortions one way or another. Once the critically overburdend emergency rooms are further burdened with hundreds of thousands of bleeding dying women from botched abortions, we'll swing back to the left and decriminalize abortion again.