And I don’t support the wall on the border which they don’t mention except through some vague enforcement of the southern border but the Dem candidates did say they supported it. The fence or wall will just cause hundreds of more deaths like Operation GateKeeper did and has.

Far as I’m concerned, Obama and the DNC don’t owe “women” anything until “women” recognize that “women” is bigger than white middle class and up, (which is one of the many reasons) HRC lost, and start fighting for all women all the time, not just a few or acknowledging “poor women” when it’s convenient.”

You mean like HRC’s statement at the debate at Howard on the rates of HIV infection among African American women? Has any other candidate, including Obama, or member of the DNC made any similarly pointed statement regarding an issue affecting women of color?

Can you cite a link? Because this middle aged white woman had no idea this was going on and would love to publicize it in her blog.

Thanks.

Far as I’m concerned, Obama and the DNC don’t owe “women” anything until “women” recognize that “women” is bigger than white middle class and up, (which is one of the many reasons) HRC lost, and start fighting for all women all the time, not just a few or acknowledging “poor women” when it’s convenient.”

Black Canseco, you are assuming the “women” know about this and ignore it. I don’t think that’s necessarily true, and it would be good to have more factual info on this.

Did it really take a woman nearly winning the candidacy for the Democratic party to go “Oh, umm… maybe women’s issues are important to some people, and we should probably address those.”

Of course, I’m still peeved from reading about Illinois FINALLY allowing judges to put GPS tracking devices on stalkers violating their restraining orders. It only took a few women to die for them to think those little details were important to some people…

It’s about time the Dems stop pandering to the right and stand up for those issues, including the ones that are a little uncomfortable to talk about.

I’m from the inner city of Chicago. For the last 5 years Big Pharama companies have been flooding the hood with these 4-period-a-year samples in clinic sleft and right and getting poor black and brown girls to sample them. They make sure their parents don’t have to know and they hype the benefits without outlining any of the dangers in the name of getting the largest sample pool possible.

The result?

Massive numbers of black and brown girls getting sick, bloated and suffering a whole assortment of side effects. I’ve watched 15 year olds gain 50lbs because of the way the patches and pills destroy their metabolism and mess with their pituitary glands. I’ve watched girls have strokes, develop baldness, you name it. Nevermind the trauma of having 4 periods instead of 12. a nice adjustment for a 13-18 year old who barely knows what it means to be a woman without medical altering your most personal aspects of your biology. All she knows is all th women in her family are having 12 periods a year and they can’t say anything about it.

But you don’t hear anything about this from “women” because it’s not their daughters. It’s Black daughters, Hispanic daughters by and large. And if they’re the ones getting hosed and used as guinea pigs, for the benefit of “women” then so be it.

Far as I’m concerned, Obama and the DNC don’t owe “women” anything until “women” recognize that “women” is bigger than white middle class and up, (which is one of the many reasons) HRC lost, and start fighting for all women all the time, not just a few or acknowledging “poor women” when it’s convenient.

You’re mixing methodology with motivation, I think- yes, it means fewer abortions via better sex ed etc., but the implied reason for even including it with “safe” and “legal” is that “rare” is a desirable result.

Hell, if you want to analyze it even further, separating it at the end emphasizes it as the most desirable of the three: “safe, legal and RARE” as opposed to “safe, rare and LEGAL.” It was the democratic party’s riposte to the right’s attack on abortion rights. I don’t particularly think it was much of a cave, and it doesn’t really bother me, but there’s no mistaking why “rare” is even mentioned.

As for dealing with LGBT issues- I dunno, what they mention would be a big step forward from where we are now, but that’s not exactly very ambitious, is it? I’d feel a bit slighted myself.