Why Lorna Switched from Clinton to Obama( Chicago NOW President )

[caligirl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
Lorna Brett Howard taped this to inform the public of why she felt she could no longer support Hillary Clinton and its amazing and warms my heart that she did not sacrifice her principals in this campaign as we so often see in Washington politicians.


edit: fixed the link

[orleans]

1. can you sum this up for those of us who can't play the video? n/t

[caligirl]

2. Yes. Lorna felt the Clinton Campaign was dishonest in its attacks

on Obama's abortion,womens right to choose, record. She was appalled at the mailer sent out in Iowa. She had worked with Obama on his votes and new his committment to abortion rights and a womans right to choose. She felt the Clinton campign was underhanded, unfair,dishonest to gain votes in Iowa. Her personal experience with Obama makes her a key person to speak out against the dishonest tactics used by the Clinton campaign.

[orleans]

9. thank you. n/t

[maddiejoan]

3. And here's something from the current President of Illinois NOW

Obama Was Present, But He Was Not There On Issues That Mattered to Illinois Women
In celebration of Women’s History Month, March 28, 2007, the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee, NOW PAC, announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President (see article below).

Illinois NOW PAC supported the endorsement of Senator Clinton. “She is, after all, our native sister,” said Bonnie Grabenhofer, president of Illinois NOW. “We know from her record and in her heart she will be there for us.”

Senator Clinton has a long history of support for women's empowerment, and her public record is a testimony to her leadership on issues important to women in the U.S. and around the globe. She has eloquently articulated the need for full economic, political and social equality for women in every institution of society, taking action throughout her career — as a lawyer, community leader, First Lady, Senator and candidate for the presidency — to advance the civil and human rights of women and girls.

After looking at his record, Grabenhofer does not feel the same way about Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

During Senator Obama’s 2004 senate campaign, the Illinois NOW PAC did not recommend the endorsement of Obama for U.S. Senate because he refused to stand up for a woman’s right to choose and repeatedly voted ‘present’ on important legislation.

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

“When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass,” said Grabenhofer. “He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now.”

For more information on the endorsement go to www.nowpac.org


http://www.illinoisnow.org/

[madrchsod]

17. that is a lie that has been debunked over and over here at du

and the press here in illinois.

[maddiejoan]

20. Just because

Steve Trombley --CEO of Chicago PP and long time supporter of Obama said it was a lie --does not mean it's a lie.

[caligirl]

21. Read the planned parenthood statement on the present votes, otherwise your looking

at further misrepresentation of his record and South Carolina and Iowa pointedly demonstrated their disapproval of Atwater campaign methods. Deal in facts, vote on facts, avoid cognitive dissonance.

[maddiejoan]

22. I did read the statements

they are from longtime Obama supporter and Chicago PP CEO --Steven Trombeley

[caligirl]

23. Clinton campaign acknowledges the truth is the PP strategy on present votes is true

From Time Magazine, no mention of the person you mention. Just Sutherland's name.

January 14, 2008 4:00
Obama Campaign Defends "Present" Abortion Votes
Posted by Jay Newton-Small | Comments (14) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

In an unusual pre-emptive conference call with reporters the Obama campaign today defended his series of “present” votes on abortion measures in the Illinois State Senate.
The votes were actually part of a strategy developed by Planned Parenthood to stop Republican attacks on pro-choice candidates. “We had a very astute and devious Republican leader that we knew was using abortion votes as wedge issues, putting those votes into mailers to help defeat pro-choice Democrats,” Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood, told reporters on the call. “It was our strategy, Planned Parenthood’s, to decide that a “present” vote was the same thing as a “no” vote.”
Then-State Senator Obama “was always ready to vote “no” on these bills but he understood how it important it was to help his fellow colleagues,” Sutherland continued. Obama “was key to the strategy… not only did Democrats follow suit, so did many Republicans. The strategy actually worked… very few of those bills actually made it into law.”
Sutherland underlined that Planned Parenthood was not endorsing Obama or any other candidate but they felt it was important to defend his record since he was acting at their behest. Hillary Clinton’s campaign in New Hampshire on January 5th sent out a mailing criticizing Obama as “"unwilling to take a stand on choice” because he voted “present” on the GOP–sponsored measures.
When asked by a reporter if there are any new mailings or attacks that prompted the call, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor replied: “We saw misinformation being spread to people in New Hampshire and Senator Obama feels that when we see misinformation being spread we should respond forcefully with the truth and that’s what we’re doing today.” Campaign sources said the call was pre-emptive because they were concerned about the possibility of further attacks on this issue.

UPDATE:
As Karen notes in her post, the Clinton campaign responded with a call of their own in which they highlighted Obama's trend of "present" votes, while acknowledging that it was part of a Planned Parenthood strategy.

“Pam Sutherland was not lying,” said Gaye Bruhn, who headed up Illinois NOW at the time of the votes. “We did differ on that strategy. We talked about it. We still differ on it. And she knew that we lobbied against it.”

[maddiejoan]

24. Bonnie Grabenhofer is the President of Illinois NOW

Take it up with her.

[caligirl]

26. So you have nothing substantive to offer? Thats it? Take it up with

someone NOT at NOW at the time the strategy was being discussed by the interested members. The current NOW President has no interest in bringing to light the meetings and conversations she had with PP then, but the former NOW chapter President(who was present and engaged in this at the time) has spoken the truth about this (Brett Howard)

[maddiejoan]

27. How do you know she wasn't at NOW?

How do you know she wasn't President of Illinois NOW at the same time Lorna Brett Howard was President of Chicago NOW?

[caligirl]

28. A legitamate difference of strategy opinion was handled by the Clintons with a deliberate lie at the

last minute, and then when Obama tried to correct the record using LEGAL political campaign calling Clinton further lied by claiming such legal calls were illegal. It was so easy to find the law allowing it, I used that law when I campaigned for Kerry,making calls then.


But the point is the acknowledged difference of opinion by the two organizations on strategy. And again a high profile person left the Clinton campaign over the Clinton deception. Why be deceptive. If Now has a legitimate argument against the strategy there was no need to mislead the voting public at the last minute in Iowa. All Clinton had to do was put the record out there earlier for people to make up there own mind. Its always the lie that gets the attention. She got caught.

[jackson_dem]

4. Bull. She wasn't going to defy Obama's Chicago machine

[Pirate Smile]

5. She had supported Clinton through Iowa and New Hampshire.

Geez.

[jackson_dem]

6. And after Obama became the front runner she had to get on board or else

[Pirate Smile]

7. Or else what? You are just making crap up. I'm sure you will continue but

I don't see any reason to argue with you about it.

[jackson_dem]

8. How many Chicago folks defy a powerful Illinois senator from Chicago?

[chascarrillo]

11. Uh, she lives in New York.

Nice try, though.

[caligirl]

14. She actually lives in both, part time I suppoose, she says.

[caligirl]

13. Hey this isn't the mayor of Philly your talking about. (the mayor of Philly

in the '70's was known to do some very bad things). Your trying to draw a line of reasoning here the factsw don't support. Obama is no goon. Don't get Chicago style politics confused with the personal standards of what appear to be two very descent people. Its not worth destroying character here, you loose credibility and you loose votes. Atwater tactics are a loose loose method.

[Pirate Smile]

15. She had already endorsed or was supporting Hillary so I don't think she was too scared.

[caligirl]

10. And you know her motivation because, lets guess here> your her best friend?

This kind of comment is unproductive. And further we have statements from Planned parenthood that supports the present votes as a strategy for dealing with the aggressive tactics of Republicans pulling a bunch of crap trying to pigeon hole dems with things added to the bills that made it impossible to vote yes. Repugs used these bills to set traps for dems to get them on record for future elections. But why let the fact get in the way. Why not assume the most dishonest of intentions from a person supporting a campaign that has not used gender baiting or the dirty politic s of Lee Atwater from the past. Standards. We don't need no dirty stinking standards. Now is entitled to their view, its unfortunate Planned Parenthood has a more firm grasp of the facts.

[madrchsod]

18. you actually think the mob runs illinois don`t you?

[DURHAM D]

12. She is the former chapter president.

Who gives a shit. She is part of the Chicago cabal.

[caligirl]

16. Details if you have them with links to back up your assertion, a fantasy otherwise.

[madrchsod]

19. oh no "the chicago cabal'!

i`ve lived here for 61 years now and that`s a brand new one...dam you guys are killing me...

[caligirl]

25. fuller explanation of Ill. NOW disagreement with the PP strategy, detail behind their attack on BO

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/obama_campaign_defends_present.html
scroll down to the last paragraph for the NOW comment about their differces with the PP strategy.


From Time Magazine, no mention of the person you mention. Just Sutherland's name.

January 14, 2008 4:00
Obama Campaign Defends "Present" Abortion Votes
Posted by Jay Newton-Small | Comments (14) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

In an unusual pre-emptive conference call with reporters the Obama campaign today defended his series of “present” votes on abortion measures in the Illinois State Senate.
The votes were actually part of a strategy developed by Planned Parenthood to stop Republican attacks on pro-choice candidates. “We had a very astute and devious Republican leader that we knew was using abortion votes as wedge issues, putting those votes into mailers to help defeat pro-choice Democrats,” Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood, told reporters on the call. “It was our strategy, Planned Parenthood’s, to decide that a “present” vote was the same thing as a “no” vote.”
Then-State Senator Obama “was always ready to vote “no” on these bills but he understood how it important it was to help his fellow colleagues,” Sutherland continued. Obama “was key to the strategy… not only did Democrats follow suit, so did many Republicans. The strategy actually worked… very few of those bills actually made it into law.”
Sutherland underlined that Planned Parenthood was not endorsing Obama or any other candidate but they felt it was important to defend his record since he was acting at their behest. Hillary Clinton’s campaign in New Hampshire on January 5th sent out a mailing criticizing Obama as “"unwilling to take a stand on choice” because he voted “present” on the GOP–sponsored measures.
When asked by a reporter if there are any new mailings or attacks that prompted the call, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor replied: “We saw misinformation being spread to people in New Hampshire and Senator Obama feels that when we see misinformation being spread we should respond forcefully with the truth and that’s what we’re doing today.” Campaign sources said the call was pre-emptive because they were concerned about the possibility of further attacks on this issue.

UPDATE:
As Karen notes in her post, the Clinton campaign responded with a call of their own in which they highlighted Obama's trend of "present" votes, while acknowledging that it was part of a Planned Parenthood strategy.

“Pam Sutherland was not lying,” said Gaye Bruhn, who headed up Illinois NOW at the time of the votes. “We did differ on that strategy. We talked about it. We still differ on it. And she knew that we lobbied against it.”