This may look like some war of words about which candidate is more supportive of abortion rights but there are two things that Obama has to watch for if he wins the nomination:

First: Is he "too" prochoice for the general election. His vote against providing emergency medical treatment for fetuses alive during an abortion will surely come back to haunt him;

Secondly, the anti-abortion groups will slaughter him with his questionnaire that he says one of his staff members filled out for him while running for office in Illinis that shows him fully supporting abortion rights - even if he disavows it.

If someone wants to switch their support, so be it. Quite frankly everyone knows where HRC has been on abortion rights. Not everyone knows where Obama has been - and that's his real problem in a general election.

ASSOCIATED PRESS-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has lot of explaining to do. He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on. With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes. recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business. Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

Obama's spiritual adviser, J Wright gave Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness. Louis Farrakhan. maybe for Wright and some others, Farrakhan "epitomized greatness." For Americans, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road." His history is a rancid stew of lies. Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. His anti-Semitism and particularly his false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans.
Farrakhan's dream has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small, either committed by others as well or not at all. (A dominant role in the slave trade, for instance.) He has talked of Jewish conspiracies to set a media line for the whole nation. He has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind. And yet Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. According to Trumpet, he applauded his "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." He praised "his integrity and honesty." He called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose." These are the words of a man who prayed with Obama just before the Illinois senator announced his run for the presidency. Will he pray with him just before his inaugural?
The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting "present" when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, "present" will not do.

to focus some light on criticisms that do make a difference to Democratic voters: what Obama has done when he's faced tough choices in office. Too often, the answer has been that's he's given in to pressure from the Bush administration or corporate lobbyists. wish one of his opponents would repeat these votes one after another in a speech:Obama voted for President Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, increasing hardship for families on the brink. Obama voted for one of President Bush's top priorities - expanding Nafta to South America - even as President Bush obstructed all the top Democratic priorities. Obama voted with Bush to make it harder for ordinary people to hold big corporations accountable when they do things like sell toxic toys, poisonous pet food, or just plain rip you off. Obama was the Senate's biggest Democratic advocate of subsidies for liquid coal, even though liquid coal produces twice the global warming pollution of the crude oil it's meant to replace (Obama "backed off" this position after being pummeled by environmentalists for several months, but still voted for increased subsidies, albeit with conditions).Most of all, I think the thing progressives need to be most worried about is how Obama tells progressives to "trim their sails" - or cut back on their ambitions, for the sake of political harmony. If Obama were to win, I can just imagine hearing that phrase over and over again as Obama tried to recycle another Democratic campaign that attempted to paint himself as a mushy centrist, rather than a proud progressive. You can find out more about the ad - and how to get in on the air - at Democratic Courage

I don't see this as a pissing match, which I agree would be unfortunate. A pissing match is where both engage in one-upsmanship. It takes two, in other words.

Here, only Hillary has done that, attacking Obama with the bogus "present" vote charges. Obama has simply refuted those charges. He hasn't attacked her bona fides on this issue, that I'm aware of. He's simply pointed out that she's full of it w/r/t his record.

I'm shocked! Shocked! that the Clintons are engaging in smear tactics and dirty campaign tricks! How dare they! I never saw this coming after those eight squeaky-clean, above-board years in the White House during which they never once denigrated or mischaracterized their political opponents unfairly. I just can't believe they've stooped this low.

I only have this to say to those of you who supported the Clintons while they were in the White House. You reap what you sow. You sanctioned this type of behavior when it was directed at the other party, but now it's somehow unacceptable when it's directing within. Spare me your tears.

What's with all the Clinton trolls?

Let's keep our eyes on the prize and not eat our own:

November 2008!

Clinton/Obama in '08!

Now that's a winning ticket!

Too many times there is so much hate thrown during primaries that whoever gets the nomination can't win because too many folks are upset about their own candidate not getting the nomination. All this does is let the other side win.

Wake up folks! The Republicans love the infighting going on. And they will use any of the sound bites that come out of the primaries against us.

Wow, a lot of you seem to think Hillary can beat out someone like McCain or even Romney in a general election? Have you seen any matchup polls lately? How does Clinton do against either of them? Just wondering.

Why would voters want a continuation of the Bush years? If they vote in McCain or Romney that is what we will have. I can't believe that anyone disgusted with the Bush years would vote Republican in 2008. If Hillary wins the nomination (not for certain) she is going to dazzle those who don't really know her. I don't care who wins the Dem nomination. I will support whoever the Dem is.

Keep your eyes on the prize!!!!!

Agree 100 percent with Gee on this one. This isn't a pissing match. Obama isn't trying to claim that Clinton isn't pro-choice, or isn't pro-choice enough. He's defending himself against Clinton's attacks, which are demonstrably false. It's Clinton who's trying to obscure the unity, who's trying to drive a wedge through the party. She's the one who's pissing; he's just trying to make sure he doesn't get wet.

How does seven Present Votes preserve a seat in the legislature? What hogwash that is.

Dana--I think you're missing what's really going on here. The Cintons have been trying to steer this entire campaign away from a discussion of the issues, probably because they thank such a tit-for-tat debate lessens Obama's stature and reduces a big strength of his ('above politics'/'new kind of politician')

However, I think the Obama team is saying, "you wanna play that game? Fine. We'll make it about character then." So now these are, at their heart, re-iterating the same themes his new SC radio spot and his post-debate comments both hit at: Hillary Clinton can't be trusted. You can't trust a single word that comes out of her mouth.

Right on OBama/Howard! Set the record straight from the Clinton's shameless say-anything-to-get-elected Rovianism! Enough is enough!

I'd say Lorna Brett Howard's disgust with the Clinton's tactics is a pretty big deal. There's not a hair's breadth of difference between the two candidates on reproductive rights except that Obama did step up against the abortion ban in SD while Hillary was evidently too busy to even write a letter.

Leave the lying to the Republicans folks. We're the reality based community remember? That's not how we win elections and we're no better than Republicans if we try. I've had enough of the Bush Administration that just makes stuff up. I don't want to trade them in for Hillary if she's going to emulate them.

Another point, if Hillary is going to win she ought to do it on her own instead of running on Bill's record with him, an ex-president acting as her head hatchet man.

Look at his record, NAFTA? Welfare reform? Dont Ask, Don’t Tell? The Communications Decency Act? Easing media ownership laws? Defense of Marriage Act? That's what we got during the Clinton years. She's running on that? If that's the kind of "progressive" legislation you want then by all means vote for Hillary.

I agree with Lorna Brett Howard, making up garbage about Obama and denigrating the efforts of all those others who worked with him on reproductive rights as acceptable collateral damage is beyond the pale.

Tony-it's simple. Those voters were on bills that had little chance of passing and weren't even designed to pass; they were just designed to make Senators take bad votes, which could then be used against them in elections. This was accomplished by including lots of unnecessary and inflammatory rhetoric in the bills' language.

This puts congressmen in swing districts in a tough spot: stay true to their pro-choice bonafides means voting "for" smashing in crying babies' heads, or some such nonsense. Or vote against that "atrocity" by voting for the bill out-lawing...which in effect means voting to criminalize abortion. Great choices.

They're stupid bills that are wastes of tax-payer time and money. It's just political game-playing.

Planned Parenthood wanted Senators to vote "Present" so the votes couldn't be used against them. Without the requisite majority, the vote still doesn't pass, but the Senators don't come off sounding like hungry baby-eaters.

But like in all things politics, nobody wants to be the first to do something different from the pack. "What if it's a huge mistake? What if I get slammed for this or that?" Being a politician is almost like being gripped by an uncontrollable feeling of insecurity at all times. So they asked Obama, who was a respected leader within the party and in a safe district, to provide political cover and show some leadership by voting Present first...giving the more-vulnerable Dems the chance to follow suit.

He did that; they did follow him. And it was successful. Does that alone save a seat? No, but it certainly helps.

Well, the Hillbots were prompt, but they disappointed me by not insisting that Obama was the one who raised the choice issue and is now whining when poor Hillary just defended herself against his baseless charges. Get back with the projection program, guys!- it's the only way to Beat Republicans, right?

Hillary supporters are going out of their way to defend her Bush-like lies and smears. Obama isn't even close to conservative and people trying to paint him as such are so hilariously ignorant and uninformed that it makes me depressed that they can even vote.

If you are a Clinton supporter, or if you support the right to choose, please let the HRC campaign know what you think of this ad.

Obama is on the right side of this issue - he's a strong supporter, with a 100% voting record. That they tried to smear him all the same is utterly cynical. As Democrats, we need to do much better than this.

Wow, a lot of you seem to think Hillary can beat out someone like McCain or even Romney in a general election? Have you seen any matchup polls lately? How does Clinton do against either of them?

Pretty good, actually. Have you checked out the new LA Times poll? Clinton does better against McCain and Romney than Obama.

I will hold my nose and vote for Obama because I am a responsible Dem, but this Obama people, his campaign and mostly his supporters have been so ugly, my vote will be cast without enthusiasm.

I couldn't be happier than having the two leading Dems fighting over who is the most supportive of choice and reproductive rights. For years Democrats have backed away from advocating strongly for choice. Do you honestly think Obama - Mr. Post-Partisan Looking For Independent Voters - would be shouting about how prochoice he is if he didn't have to? Do you think Clinton would be talking as much about it if she didn't think it gave her an advantage over Obama? \

I understand why people are upset about the tone of some of the democratic bickering, but these kind of issue-based attacks are a good thing. For once I've got Democrats fighting over who will most vigorously defend my rights.

It may be divisive in the short term, but I fail to see how forcing Obama and Clinton to fight to prove their support for reproductive rights is a bad thing for progressives or women in the long run. I'll take that over candidates pandering to the "middle" and saying mushy things - sure you get unity, but you also get little vocal support for progressive politics.

Dana --- Of course, the most obscene thing about this artificially-constructed abortion flap is that just 3 years ago, no doubt positioning herself for her presidential run, Hillary started embarking on what was described as an "anti-abortion strategy," essentially saying that it should be "Safe, Legel, and NEVER."

more details here -- http://www.slate.com/id/2112712/

This happens to be my personal position, by the way... and I applauded her at the time for saying this.... but I'll give anyone a gold star who can reconcile that with her contention now that "OBAMA IS WOBBLY ON CHOICE".

but then again, Obama has been INCONSISTENT ON THE WAR. Obama is CYNICALLY USING THE RACE CARD. And Obama WILL DO ANYTHING TO WIN!!!!!!!!!!!

If Obama didn't want his record on choice exposed, he shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. Obama brings up a contentious issue, Clinton defends themselves and then Obama whines about them attacking him. Is he really tough enough for the general election?

NARAL also endorsed Joe"Short Ride" Lieberman.That worked out pretty well, don't 'ya think?

Hillbot,

Hillary along with her establishment 'sisters' mailing out a flyer to women in NH which distorted Obama's record on pro-choice.

You think that is acceptable...? If honor and integrity means nothing to you, then I guess you are on the right team

Hillary was caught lying about Obama's record on choice, a core issue for liberal woman. And yet few liberal women have denounced her for this and many other awful power players. Does loyalty to the Clintons trump loyalty to the Democratic Party and the country? What is behind this True Believer behavior that countenances lying and race-baiting to gain power at any cost?
Who are these True Believers? They're not Democrats.

Go into any drugstore in the country and now due to Senator Hillary Clinton, women now have available on the retail shelves EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION. They don't need doctors or prescription...they just need an open drugstore.

She not once, but twice held up the appointment of the FDA commissioner until there was an approval. It took years and she persevered....and now due to her, everyday women have the ability to make sure that they only have the children when they want to mothers. She has given women the true ability to control their babies, their lives and be fully free and equal.....and to grow up to be President of the United States.

The question about those votes and the other 100+ votes is that in this field, she is a leader on this issue, has always been a leader....It's about how hard do you fight, how long do you fight and who's willing to put themselves out to be a leader on this issue. She has been a leader on this issue.

arrgh....no preview function

Control their bodies, not their babies.....though at 4AM with a howling infant I am sure many mothers would very much like just that.

What's with conflating abortion rights and "reproductive rights"? Aren't abortion and reproduction antonymous, or at least mutually exclusive?

Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut are not reproductive rights cases; they are abortion rights and contraceptive rights cases. Skinner v. Oklahoma (forced sterilization of some convicts) and Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization of "feeble minded" institutional inmate) are reproductive rights cases.

Let's be honest and accurate in our use of language.

voting present in the IL state legislature is a reasonable tactic. it's less than 2% of the total votes obama particpated in. And the 7 abortion votes were part of a PP strategy to defeat bad legislation.

Bad karma on Hillary's fault to turn them into an attack and I'm glad that people are holding her to account for it.

john in Nashville....the answer in a word is no.

Abortion rights, contraception, good health care, sex education are all components of reproductive rights.

And I should know since that's what NARAL means....the National Abortion Right and Reproductive Rights Action League .....and I am on the board.

john in Nashville....the answer in a word is no.

Abortion rights, contraception, good health care, sex education are all components of reproductive rights.

And I should know since that's what NARAL means....the National Abortion Right and Reproductive Rights Action League .....and I am on the board.

Come on we don't need any women leading our country they just would screw it up anyways, and then it will take a man to streighten it out.