2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary: I could compromise on abortion if it included exceptions for mother's health
From an interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd that apparently was broadcast the week of September 29, 2015 on MTP Daily.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html#ooid=N1ODF1dzpHyB52_cmPb77qDHRLMY2We_
CHUCK TODD: Are there reasonable restrictions that you would ever support on abortion?
HILLARY CLINTON: I've said that there were.
CHUCK TODD: What are they?
HILLARY CLINTON: And that's under Roe v. Wade, that there can be restrictions in the very end of, you know, the third trimester. But they have to take into account the life and health of the mother.
I remember in '96, Chuck, my husband vetoed a very restrictive legislation on late-term abortions. And he vetoed it at an event in the White House where we invited a lot of women who had faced this very difficult decision that ought to be made based on their own conscience, their family, their faith, in consultation with doctors. Those stories left a searing impression on me. You know, women who think their pregnancy is going well and then wake up and find some really terrible problem, women whose life is threatened themselves if they carry their child to term, and women who are told by doctors that the child they're carrying will not survive.
And so, you know, again, I am where I have been, which is that, you know, if there is a way to structure some kind of constitutional restrictions that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that. And that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional actions.
https://www.nbcumv.com/news/hillary-clinton-tells-chuck-todd-her-organizing-principle-%E2%80%9Cdefend-our-security-our-interests
Hillary is leaving plenty of room to run to the right.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)willing to compromise on reproductive rights to get things done, and I replied that even though I know she's said she is willing to compromise with conservatives to get things done, I could not believe she would go so far as to include compromising on reproductive rights. I thought that was one area that she would be a firewall in defending progressive principles.
Boy, was I wrong!
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I guess not.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)That is huge. Thats not some small restriction that is changing the foundation of our country.
The word abortion should never appear in our constitution. The constitution in not meant to limit rights or grant rights it is meant to protect rights. The right of a woman to choose has been protected for 40 years and Hillary would consider changing that. Shameful.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)It sounded to me like what she was saying was that she could compromise on legislation, so long as it was constitutional under Roe v Wade.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Perhaps not in this interview, but she did say it.
athena
(4,187 posts)In this context, it means "within the constitution." Without the word "amendment" anywhere to be seen, it's a stretch to argue that Clinton is advocating a constitutional amendment to restrict abortion rights.
randome
(34,845 posts)She's speaking in diplomatic tongues to show her willingness to conservatives on the fence between her and Trump. It doesn't mean she will actually do anything to roll back abortion rights.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)vintage. or not.
the argument that's all one big eleventy-dimensional chess game...this time with our abortion rights...hmmmm, seems terribly familiar.
(Damn you Lucy! you said you'd hold the football THIS time!!!)
randome
(34,845 posts)You can't reason with the GOP, you can't shout at them, you can't plead with them. The only way to get something done is to trip them up with language. I can't see Clinton doing a thing to roll back abortion rights. All the evil stuff that's been done in the past few years has been GOP governors signing odious laws. Clinton isn't going to follow that road.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)diplomatic wiggle-room? A progressive Margaret Thatcher, if you will?
randome
(34,845 posts)You can't argue righteousness to the GOP, it's not a concept they understand. Obama has made many of the same overtures and never followed through on them. He knows how to yank their chains. Hopefully Clinton understands that, too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and you can't actually do better than that. But it fools people (like it did here) into thinking it is slightly conservative.
Planned Parenthood gets it, sorry for DU that it does not.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She even used right wing terminology calling late term abortions "partial birth abortions":
LAZIO: I had a pro-choice record in the House, and I believe in a womans right to choose. I support a ban on partial-birth abortions. Senator Moynihan called it infanticide. Even former mayor Ed Koch agreed that this was too extreme a procedure. This is an area where I disagree with my opponent. My opponent opposes a ban on partial-birth abortions.
CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. Ive met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course its a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a womans choice.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
If Bernie said something like that we'd never hear the end of it, he's always been 100% pro-choice.
randome
(34,845 posts)But politicians behave like politicians. I can't see Clinton actually doing anything to roll back abortion rights. She would be rightly crucified for making the attempt and I think she knows it. Problem is, she sometimes thinks she has to say what is necessary to take some of the wind out of the GOP's sails. IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Especially not when our rights are being constantly eroded at the state level.
Anti-choice voters won't vote for a Democrat anyway, there is no reason for her to signal that she's willing to bargain away our rights.
randome
(34,845 posts)There is a lot of 'wiggle room' in what she said that effectively leaves the issue off the table despite the political calculations. Unfortunately we are still trying to get the conservative majority out of Congress so she likely thinks she has to tread carefully.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Gmafb, Bernie went to Liberty U and STOOD UP for our rights and he was raked over the coals here by Hillary supporters.
Now she admits she's willing to compromise and her supporters are telling us it's no big deal?
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)If you have any principles.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Gaffes and misspeaks and political blather and mistakes and evolution. This woman is NEVER held accountable!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They've defended her vote for the Iraq war, her friend and confidant Kissinger and even her support for DOMA, she can do no wrong.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Hillary supporters will be fine with anything she does and as far as Hillary is concerned the left can go and pound sand, who else are they going to vote for, Trump?
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)As a bone to Republicans, presumably to make a 3rd way grand bargain.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Seriously your entire subspecies has completely lost touch with reality
randome
(34,845 posts)It shows her willingness to 'reach across the aisle' and at the same time mention that it's a choice between a woman and her doctor, thereby undercutting the entire premise.
Like it or not, we still have a conservative majority in Congress that has to be dealt with. She's not going to abridge abortion rights.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)And that's not lying. Got it.
Talking to you guys is like trying to reason with a four year old or a trekkie.
revbones
(3,660 posts)I'm reminded a bit of some interviews on YouTube of Trump followers who, when confronted with some of his statements would say things like "He doesn't really mean that, he's just trying to be political", etc...
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)I think I'll remember it for next time I need such a descriptor.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Clinton never said "I could compromise..." But it's presented as a first-person statement to give the appearance of a quote.
She isn't going to roll back abortion rights. "...if there is a way..." is something one says that leaves plenty of room to later say "No, sorry, that one doesn't cut it. Next!"
I don't like her using this approach but this is how she works. She's doing more pandering to the fence-sitters than I think she needs to.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
Vattel
(9,289 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)coyote
(1,561 posts)Hillary supporters told me so.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)They'll be here soon.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)You hater!!!
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I have no words that are usable in polite company for my anger and outrage over this obscene willingness to legislate medical decisions to satisfy the right wing whackos she is attempting to court.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)In my 40 years of medical transcription, the few later term abortions I have done were without exception due to catastrophic anomalies, not as one Clinton supporter here argued "third trimester abortions on demand."
On this point, we cannot yield an inch. I am appalled at her willingness to bargain this important women's right away.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Who would decide?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I thought everything she said was great until I got to the bold part. The door to compromise on this issue should never be opened!
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)she's not. never has been. her and Bill both pioneered the art of "compromise" on this subject, resulting in parental notification, waiting periods, and NOW (b/c of that slippery slope) mandatory ultrasounds.
the "history" of the 90s is barely old enough to be history and already people have forgotten.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)get up to speed. if it's something that matters, it might be worth a little research time.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)couched in speeches about what a horrible decision it is to have to make. Conceding the shame narrative in RW ideology.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)This was less than six months ago.
Someone want to tell me again why my vagina means that I should support Hillary?
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)or something like that.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Ah,well...I'll be in good company.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Gawd, she just gets worse and worse.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)She has NO strong convictions, and is NOT even a liberal.
Women (on abortion, support for Planned Parenthood, equal pay, etc.).
Workers (on TPP and every other issue of importance).
Students on debt.
African Americans on private prisons, mass incarceration & police murder and brutality.
Immigrants & their families (send them back to the RW death squad countries she helps create).
The elderly (Social Security is on the chopping block, believe me).
Health care (oh gawd!)
Fighting "Citizens United" (ha-ha-ha).
ALL supporters, on the Forever War (all except war profiteers--they won't be betrayed).
There is not an issue on which her unthinking, gullible supporters won't be betrayed.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)"Flint should never happen to anyone. Now let's start fracking."
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Not.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)after all, they "endorsed" her straight from the git, they must know her position.
right?
Ino
(3,366 posts)her willingness to compromise on abortion. I'm sure the other side will be thrilled to take her up on it. Maybe they'll hold the budget hostage so she can say she was "forced" to do it? Or trade it for consideration for one of her own pet projects? Or maybe she'll just offer it outright for a purely selfish reason... to get Repuke votes for her second term, donations, etc.
Obviously, abortion rights is not a sacred issue for her (what is?), so it's up for the highest bidder.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)In fact she is well to the right of them on some things.
senz
(11,945 posts)Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)I was encouraged to see most of the Blue Dogs leave Congress in the past several years, Blanche Lincoln especially. They are closer to Republicans than Democrats.
People claim Bernie is not a Democrat. I believe, in spirit, he's the only REAL Democrat running (an FDR/New Deal accolyte) and Hillary's the BLUE DOG Democrat willing to sacrifice Democratic gains to make deals with the Dark Side. Just.Like.Bill
Vinca
(50,279 posts)It's a legal procedure. End of story. Keep your noses out of the private lives of women. That means you, too, Hillary.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)Here's what she just told AIPAC:
" W)e need steady hands, not a president who says hes neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday, because everythings negotiable.
Well, my friends, Israels security is non-negotiable."
http://time.com/4265947/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-transcript/
Israel's security is non-negotiable but Hillary is willing to compromise on reproductive rights?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)DJ13
(23,671 posts)...far right.
Are we SURE she's not a mislabled Republican?
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Which iteration is she on now? SOP for her.
A coin toss holds fewer positions, depending on the audience.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)She was already tossing the right bones.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Un-Fucking-Believable
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Bettie
(16,110 posts)smilies as a 'defense'.
athena
(4,187 posts)I'm not sure if anybody is reading what she said. Note the big "if" clause at the beginning of the sentence in bold. Hillary often does this: puts a big if clause next to something she's being asked to agree with, which only points out how unreasonable the demand is. In this case, not only does she emphasize the "if" clause, but she mentions that no republican is willing to come close to her requirements. In other words, she's pointing out that Republicans don't care about women's lives or health, while making it clear to anyone who is listening that she will protect women's reproductive freedom as president.
Of course, it's not a sound byte, nor an easy promise that can then be used to defeat her in the general election. It seems to me that many people would rather have a totally pure candidate who has no chance to win in November than a brilliant candidate who is being careful not to destroy her chances with the general public so early on. Has no one learned anything from the 2000 election?
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts).....problem for me.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There is no situation in which she would even have to consider offering this compromise. There's never going to be a veto-proof anti-choice majority in both houses of Congress.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)And that is just what most of the voters are sick and
tired of.
It is the same kind of "blather" she uses for many issues,
which is exactly the reason for distrusting her.
Sorry, state your position clearly ( and not just on this
subject) and then explain the reasons for your
stand. If you cannot do that like in this case, you
don't deserve the office you crave.
surrealAmerican
(11,362 posts)... which of her expressed progressive positions are just blather too?
Once you know someone lies some of the time, you can't trust them.
peace13
(11,076 posts)Gotta wonder why women would be willing to vote her way. With Hill, it appears that everything Is negotiable. Nothing against Hill or her peeps. I just can't understand.
Marr
(20,317 posts)What's funny is her supporters insisting she's just lying. So it's ok.
TBF
(32,068 posts)how does that work if she can't support choice?
Unbelievable.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)most all of them.
This just goes to show you, she'll say whatever she has to in order to win, and then she'll do whatever she has to in order to not have to make difficult decisions. Typical DLC Democrat.
She's little Ms. Shortcut - she's taken shortcuts at every step, trying to shortcut her way to glory and riches. She succeeded on the latter part.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)if she has evolved in the past 6 months, or if she is still 'where she has been,' you know, willing to compromise on abortion rights
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Response to TheDormouse (Original post)
athena This message was self-deleted by its author.
Zira
(1,054 posts)I doubt she's actually flip flopped on a lot of things.
She just flip flops on what she says not what she will do
She clearly hasn't changed on her old views on restricting women's right to choose.
Thanks for vetoing that, Bill!
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)on MSNBC.