Hillary Modifies Abortion Language

From Drudge:

HILLARY MODIFIES ABORTION LANGUAGE
Mon Jan 24 2005 20:54:55 ET

Proposing new political language about abortion rights for an increasingly skittish Democratic Party, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that friends and foes on the issue should come together on "common ground" to reduce the number of "unwanted pregnancies" and ultimately abortions, which she called a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."

Clinton, in a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters at the state Capitol, firmly restated her support for Roe v. Wade.

But then she offered warm words to opponents of abortion and said that faith and organized religion were the "primary" reasons teenagers abstained from sexual relations.

The NEW YORK TIMES is set to splash the Hillary speech.

Developing...

This not an abortion thread in the sense of who here is for it or against it.

It\'s a look into the left trying to move to the right and the queen of all that is left doing it.

Anyway, looks like Hill is working overtime for 2008.

What\'s ur point?  Legal abortions and abstinence are not mutually exclusive.

My point is that the left (Hillary is the left) is moving to the right we thought she would. It will be interesting to see the left\'s reaction to this move.

At least liberals make an attempt to acknowledge and understand the range of political and social beliefs in this country.  Conservatives on the other hand react by saying "F*** you.  We don\'t need you to win.  Why don\'t you leave the country?"

I guess. I would say they do it mostly for votes. Then again, I believe most politicians do that either right or left.

Originally posted by Coredweller
At least liberals make an attempt to acknowledge and understand the range of political and social beliefs in this country.  

Sorry, but if you are a Christian and have certain social and moral values you don\'t fit in to the "progressive" picture of America.

Also if what your are stating were true, wouldn\'t the "liberals" have won on November 2?  Liberals are out of touch with mainstream America.

Originally posted by GigaShadow


Sorry, but if you are a Christian and have certain social and moral values you don\'t fit in to the "progressive" picture of America.

Also if what your are stating were true, wouldn\'t the "liberals" have won on November 2?  Liberals are out of touch with mainstream America.

Nice how you didn\'t quote the other portion of my post.  Because you are a perfect example of a conservative who says "Fuck you, we don\'t need you to win, why don\'t you just leave the country."

Liberals are out of touch with the middle american red states, and conservatives are out of touch with the blue states.  What else is new?  The difference is that liberals are trying to reach out to the red states, and conservatives are blowing off the blue states.

Originally posted by Coredweller
 The difference is that liberals are trying to reach out to the red states, and conservatives are blowing off the blue states.

You really don\'t get it do you?  A majority of American\'s don\'t want or share liberal ideals.  You are right, it is getting to point where conservative America is getting tired of liberal whining and spectacles in Congress.  Take todays anti war speeches by Barbara Boxer in the midst of Rice\'s confirmation as an example.

I can laugh at you as much as you laugh at me.

I\'ve said this before:  GW Bush won the popular vote in the last election by 2.46% over the Democrats.  If it hadn\'t been raining in Ohio that day, or if any number of other tiny details had gone differently, the Democrats could have won a razor thin victory instead.

Don\'t get cocky just because you barely won.  It could have gone the other way, and you would do well to prepare for that possibility next time.  Reaching out and understanding the opposing views of the blue states, which made up 48.27% of the popular vote would help the GOP assure a larger margin of victory next time.  

However, the republicans don\'t seem to give a shit about our views, and they may regret that choice in the future.

And how is the left seriously trying to understand the red states?

Originally posted by Coredweller
:
I\'ve said this before:  GW Bush won the popular vote in the last election by 2.46% over the Democrats.  If it hadn\'t been raining in Ohio that day, or if any number of other tiny details had gone differently, the Democrats could have won a razor thin victory instead.

 

Hadn\'t been raining in Ohio??  Bush won by a larger margin than Clinton ever did.  Clinton never even got a majority!  Also conservatives gained more seats in Congress.  If that isn\'t a rejection of liberal ideals I don\'t know what is?

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Hadn\'t been raining in Ohio??  Bush won by a larger margin than Clinton ever did.  Clinton never even got a majority!  Also conservatives gained more seats in Congress.  If that isn\'t a rejection of liberal ideals I don\'t know what is?

What are you smoking?  Clinton beat Dole in 1996 with an 8.51% margin in the popular vote, and a virtual landslide in the electoral vote.

He beat GHW Bush in 1992 with a 5.56% margin in the popular vote and a slightly smaller landslide in the electoral college.

A tiny majority means nothing if almost everyone else who voted voted against you.  All GW Bush could muster was a 2.46% edge over his closest competitor.

Conservatives gained a few seats in congress because southerners thought they were voting against gays.  When that issue is nullified in the next election, you\'ll be back to square one.  It\'s really not a good idea kick back and assume the nation is coming to agree with you.

On second thought, keep thinking that.  It\'ll be funny as hell when everything is reversed in the next election.  Gigashadow will be saying "Wha Happened?"  

Originally posted by Coredweller
What are you smoking?  Clinton beat Dole in 1996 with an 8.51% margin in the popular vote, and a virtual landslide in the electoral vote.

He beat GHW Bush in 1992 with a 5.56% margin in the popular vote and a slightly smaller landslide in the electoral college.

A tiny majority means nothing if almost everyone else who voted voted against you.  All GW Bush could muster was a 2.46% edge over his closest competitor.

Conservatives gained a few seats in congress because southerners thought they were voting against gays.  When that issue is nullified in the next election, you\'ll be back to square one.  It\'s really not a good idea kick back and assume the nation is coming to agree with you.

On second thought, keep thinking that.  It\'ll be funny as hell when everything is reversed in the next election.  Gigashadow will be saying "Wha Happened?"  

Clinton never won a majority.  You are also talking percents which does not portray actual numbers as Bush won by more votes than Clinton ever did.

1992 Clinton had 43.3 percent
1996 Clinton had right at 50 percent which is still not a majority.

Bush had 4.5 million more votes then Kerry and won by roughly four percentage points.  He still did this with terrible approval rating... like I said you still don\'t get it.

In two years when the Dems lose more seats you will still be denying the inevitable.

[GmanJoe]

I want Cored to carry my baby.

And how is the left seriously trying to understand the red states?

They are not.

They already understand the red states. And are trying to look as red as possible. But they are still pretty damn blue!