You know, I am really pleasantly surprised by Obama. He's not perfect, and his backtracking on promises (rejecting public financing (over it - we need cashmoney to beat McCain)) some of his views (I was particularly disappointed in his "whatever!" attitude towards wiretapping), and I was disappointed that he refused to face McCain in town-hall debates this summer. However, I continue to be impressed by his public presentation, his commercials, and his efforts to reach out to women and Clinton supporters.

I am particularly impressed by the recent linguistic changes on reproductive rights in the Democratic Party's platform:

 

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empowers people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

 

This is compared to the "pansy" versions that have existed since the 1990s, calling for abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare." Not that I don't think that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, but I think that the emphasis on its rarity is judgmental and takes and overly apologetic attitude towards a right that needs to be fought for.

Compare it to the 2004 version:

We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade , and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

It skirts the issue by not even having the temerity to mention abortion or RvW in the opening sentence, and then has the audacity to make RvW an aside, a subordinate clause. It dispenses with the issue quickly, and (like the rest of John Kerry's candidacy) does away with this icky issue before it costs them any. This "please don't hurt us!" attitude only hurts women and families in need, and I am proud that we finally have a candidate who will forcefully argue for women's rights, even if he's a man.

(Not to disparage my girl Hill, but you know she wouldn't have done away with the Clintonism "safe, legal, and rare". Though I'm not sure a woman candidate would have been able to take this strong of a view without catching hell - whatever, though, she's used to that.)

As most of you probably know, this is an excellent argument for the language by Dana Goldstein of The American Prospect. I was alerted to the issue via Feministe and Feministing , duh.

0

You recommended