Dems Adopt Platform in Pittsburgh
ABC News’ Teddy Davis reports: A Democratic panel adopted the party’s platform "Renewing America’s Promise" during a Saturday meeting in Pittsburgh. The statement of party principles will now be presented to the full convention in Denver later this month for a perfunctory vote.
In a nod toward supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the platform declares that the party is "united behind a commitment that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care."
The platform stops short, however, of proposing, as Clinton did in her campaign, that all individuals should be required to have health insurance.
The influence of Clinton’s supporters is seen not only on health care but also in its discussion of opportunities for women.
The women’s rights section characterizes votes received by Clinton during the primaries as "18 million cracks in the highest glass ceiling."
On Iraq, the platform states that Democrats "expect" to complete redeployment "within 16 months," reflecting the time frame that Barack Obama has long proposed but not the air of certainty that his Web site once featured.
On abortion, Democrats reaffirmed their support for Roe v. Wade and vowed to oppose "any and all efforts" to weaken a woman’s right to "choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay."
The “Choice” section goes on to affirm the party’s commitment to a handful of measures that hold the potential for reducing the incidence of abortion.
These include family planning services, sex education, adoption programs, as well as income support and pre- and post-natal health care.
Its reference to reducing "the need for abortions" now reads as follows: “We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions."
Slate’s Will Saletan, the author of “Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War,” told ABC News that the Democrats struggled to craft abortion reduction language because a “gulf” exists between “pro-choice and pro-life people over the semantics of how that is said.”
“Here’s the problem,” Saletan said. “Obama and the Democrats are trying to craft a message that will be visible to the pro-life people in terms of saying that abortion will be reduced but that will be invisible to the pro-choice people.”
The Rev. Jim Wallis, author of “God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It,” told ABC News in June that “abortion reduction should be a central Democratic Party plank in this election.”
Wallis, who worked with the platform committee on its language, reacted to the adoption of the platform by praising the "parallelism of choice" contained in it.
“There is a ‘parallelism of choice’ here in the Democratic Platform that is a good, helpful, and new direction that will make many people feel more welcome," Wallis said. "The Democratic Party is now on record in ‘strongly’ supporting both a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy or to decide to have her child with promised support, with the potential common ground of agreeing together for the need to reduce abortions.”
Email
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
Sounds good, but no surprises. It just means I can go back to being a Democrat on the national level after the DNC gets all this Obama silliness out of its system.
Posted by: mlwheeler | August 9, 2008, 7:28 pm 7:28 pm
ahhhh yes, i love it. the democrats with a slogan like “renewing americas promise”… lol they REALLY need to stop with the generic words, my goodness… “hope”, “change”, “believe”, “promise”…. give me a break…
Posted by: tim | August 9, 2008, 9:12 pm 9:12 pm
Before they pass any health care bill,they need to make sure Companies stop pushing their retiree health care cost onto the taxpayer when the retiree reach 65.
Posted by: Earl Lancaster | August 10, 2008, 11:18 am 11:18 am
Great….I hope these are NOT “just words”, but actions such as an Obama/Clinton ticket. That would ease the sense of betrayel and female bashing, but I will never forget that the party I believe in as the party that promotes equality, not only allowed but encouraged female bashing to a horrifying degree in order to promote a male candidate. You are going to have to rebuild trust with MAJOR ACTION. After all, Womens Rights consists of a lot more than just protecting reproductive rights; something that benefits MEN a lot more. Men after all have a problem with taking responsibilities toward their out of wedlock babies, they are also the ones most likely to promote abortion rights, because it benefits them while the woman lives with the guilt and stigma. So, voting for reproductive rights, while selling out on Women’s Rights as a whole, is not possible for MANY of us.
Posted by: irma | August 10, 2008, 10:22 pm 10:22 pm
mlwheeler…
Well, what can I say… you don’t seem to be exactly what I would call a Democrat.
tim…
Again, what can I say… you don’t even seem to be a believer in the American Dream.
Earl Lancaster…
It’s simply a matter of any money promised by any company for retirement health care benefits be placed in an interest bearing escrow-like plan.
Which, by the way, is where ALL Social Security monies should have always been stored!!! If the gov’t borrows S.S. money then it should pay interest ABOVE the planned/expected interest!
Irma, Irma, Irma…
Where is the “betrayal”?
The numbers came down on Obama’s side.
Why, and how, could that be so?
Obviously, the message… and the delivery of said message.
Look… promoting a white-woman because you are a white-woman is not a valid reason to do so. Barack is not exactly what one would call a white-man. I am a white-man. Hillary is a white-woman. In the American Classical anti-bellum sense isn’t it a matter of white-for-white, regardless of the sex?
I’m a hardcore populist-democrat. I listen to the message in terms of the people affected and the message delivered. I love my mother and my wife… and I can guarantee that I would vote for my wife as President (I’d have to think a bit about my Mother). The point being… I don’t have a problem with a woman President. However, myself being a product of the 60′s, I really, really have a hard time embracing anyone from those generations that have lead us this far astray.
I believe that many democrats believe as I do… and so, I ask, how is that a “betrayal”?
Posted by: Terry Woods | August 11, 2008, 4:29 am 4:29 am
Regarding the point where I said…
“However, myself being a product of the 60′s, I really, really have a hard time embracing anyone from those generations that have lead us this far astray.”
What I was referring to was being…
Aw hell, much of the result of the Clinton Administration I am at peace with… however… there are some aspects that I feel are crushing to the American Worker… as crushing as those purpetrated by hiz ‘oner Ronald Reagan.
I’m talking about NAFTA and the other non-beneficial policies towards workers. Why should I believe that Hillary would diverge from the route taken by, her husband, Bill?
I like Bill… I thought he did great… until I found out about those that he left behind, namely the American Workers!
Posted by: Terry Woods | August 11, 2008, 4:48 am 4:48 am
And McCain was in Pittsburgh reliving his story about how he thought about the Steel Curtain defense while in a Vietnamese POW camp.
Wait…
Did he say Steel Curtain…?
Because that was after the Vietnam War.
But it wasn’t a lie. Just McCain being McCain.
Posted by: Paul | August 11, 2008, 8:37 am 8:37 am
NAFTA was George Bush Senior’s write up waiting for Bill Clinton to SIGN as soon as he entered office. There was a lot of support for it and political pressure…..As for betrayel; claiming that the Clintons led the DEMS astray, is a perfect example of betrayel. Allowing the media, campaign talking heads and top Dems to make attacks on Clinton as a woman as well as her supporters as women, while ready to attack any remotely racist comment is BETRAYEL. Double standards in a Party that espouses EQUALITY is BETRAYEL to those who have volunteered, contributed and voted for DEMS.
Posted by: irma | August 11, 2008, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
I hope that obama and the Dems have the openess to start seeing their one sided pro abortion view is not only not the view of most of America: it is keeping a large amount of people who agree entirely with the humane views of the Democratic party on everything else from being able to vote Democrat. If Democrats want to be the inclusive party they will soften their pro abortion stance. The quicker the better
Posted by: d.d. | August 14, 2008, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm