TNR BLOGS

January 07, 2009 | 6:53 PM
January 07, 2009 | 6:49 PM
January 07, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 5:09 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
19.09.2008
Hillary Spotlights Reproductive Rights

 Hillary has an op-ed in today's NYT that looks at the Bush administration's latest effort to undercut women's health and reproductive rights. Someone in our office suggested that the piece's failure to mention any of the current presidential combatants means Hillary has decided to check out of this race and focus squarely on rebuilding her own brand. Maybe. But I actually see this piece as lending a hand to Team Obama by aiming to make voters think twice about the consequences of a pro-life White House.

 This reminder is important, particularly for those women voters we keep hearing so much about. It's hard to tell at this point whether a significant chunk of gals beyond the GOP base have indeed been over by Sarah Palin. But any who have been need to be confronted with concrete examples of why policies matter more than chromosomes. More specifically, any embittered Hillary supporters still considering casting a vote for McCain-Palin even in semi-protest should be urged (by Hillary herself in this case) to ponder just how far this Republican ticket is from Hillary in terms of women's rights and a whole host of other issues on the table. As already has been noted countless times, backing a woman who opposes universal health care, comprehensive sex-ed, stem cell research, and abortion (altogether now!) even in cases of rape and incest seems an odd way to honor Hillary's achievement.

None of which Hillary actually said in her op-ed. But Hill is no dummy. She knows that McCain would rather reproductive rights stay out of the spotlight in an election where the Republicans are hoping to woo chicks with talk of women's rights and shattered ceilings. Who's to say Hillary can't rebuild her cred for future races while screwing the GOP in this one as well?

--Michelle Cottle

Posted: Friday, September 19, 2008 5:39 PM with 5 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

kevincollins said:

"...make voters think twice about the consequences of a pro-life White House."

(groan)

Michelle, why in the world can't we make it "anti-choice" instead of "pro-life" being that most GOPers support the "pro-death" death penalty? I swear, it's like someone averring they're a vegetarian while whoofing down a frigging T-bone.

September 19, 2008 2:38 PM

MajMike said:

Kevin, I agree.  I saw a discussion of this somewhere last week, and the hosting blog said that their practice was to use the name 'most associated' with the movement.  That is part of the MSMs problems, you would think online we could hold them to higher standards.  "Anti-choice" is more accurate, and definitely more apt given the primary argument in the matter.

Call them as they are, don't let the other guys frame the entire debate.

As a guy, I hope American women see the false support represented by Sarah Palin.  She is the anti-woman woman, and stands against what most women consider the heart of feminism and liberation (reproductive rights).   The women I know are not stupid enough to fall for this.

September 19, 2008 4:16 PM

chmclean said:

Okay, Michelle, I'll take your word for it that Hil's goal is to push women away from McCain/Palin. But she could do it much more effectively by coming out with a strong argument FOR Obama. Why hasn't she done this? I've heard barely a peep from her since the Palin announcement. Why isn't she stating in clear and unambiguous terms that her supporters, if they're true to her cause, must go with Obama? Makes me nervous.

September 19, 2008 4:54 PM

esmense said:

You haven't heard a peep, chmclean, because you aren't willing to listen.

September 21, 2008 1:39 PM

m.schroeder said:

I have been hearing an ad repeatly (in the Missouri market), that goes on in great detail about how Mccain and his allies in congress will support many health measures if he is president. It lists many itemss, and goes on for a long time.

I had to listen to it a couple of times to make sure I was hearing it right...it states that he will suport stem cell reasearch...at least it mentions stem cell reasearch, maybe just to make you thing he supports it.

Does anybody know if he does support it and his running mate doesn't? Or is it just another example of saying something to an audience you think they want to hear?

September 21, 2008 6:42 PM