Originally Posted By: THE Bastard
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
I don't disagree, but I think the attack will be more difficult than it would've been against a candidate without the same back story.

After all, she's the first pro-life candidate who is a woman. That automatically eliminates that old cliche feminists use of "[the candidate] wouldn't feel that way if [the candidate] was a woman."

As another poster noted, the hard core feminists weren't going to vote for the GOP in any event. Her appeal is going to be to moderates and independents (or conservative democrat women) who wouldn't have otherwise voted Republican.

And, again as noted above, in a close race in a swing state that could decide the election.


No arguement from me. My point is that her appeal and mobilization to get out the vote for that group will be much more narrow than the pro choice women who may not have voted for Obama without this type of compelling reason. We'll see who's right in November.

One way or another, Choice is going to decide this election.


I don't think that abortion is going to be that big of a factor. I think she'll appeal more to the working class mothers on a personal level with her story than they'll be put off by her pro-life stance. It's one of those things that's not as big an issue as special interest groups and the media tend to make it out to be. Yes, the baseline of each party will vote based on those things; but I think the independent and moderate voters are more concerned with broader issues that affect them on a daily basis like the economy.

whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."