If O'Reilly is taking a veiled swipe at Obama, which he probably is, then he is off base and just being inflammatory, which of course he is.  Whatever pro-choice, or pro-life,  one-issue voters choose to hang their hats on regarding mantras and labels is their business, it is of little interest to me. 

But Ms. Judd is awfully arrogant in her "mantra" as well, "And a woman voting for McCain and Palin is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders".......who is she to issue such a blanket condemnation of women not voting the way she does.

I'm sure that all the women who are supposedly "Pro-life" are not arrogant when they issue blanket condemnations of all women who are pro-choice and don't vote their way either. 

On the contrary, they most certainly are just as arrogant.

Tru dat!!

I'm surprised that O'Rielly has time for this. I would think that he had all his time tied up getting his one of his "producers" to stalk Mark Levin because of his response to what O'Reilly said about Limbaugh and others.

www.thehotjoints.com/2008/09/25/audio-oreilly-blasts-right-wing-radio-liars/

www.topix.com/who/bill-oreilly/2008/09/mark-levin-blasts-bill-oreilly

polipundit.com/index.php?p=20251

I would think that he had all his time tied up getting his one of his "producers" to stalk Mark Levin because of his response to what O'Reilly said about Limbaugh and others.

I'm sure Billy Boy already has "FOX Security" tailing M. Rotten Levin....

(For the benefit of anyone who is unfamiliar with "Fox Security", I have included this link.)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603030010

It makes me wonder where "just an opinion" ends and "blanket condemnation" begins, but I guess either one can be considered arrogant.

Well then let me help you, I have never arrogantly condemned or told people who they should vote for based on their gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation; essentially telling them they are idiots or stupid for voting for or against a certain candidate.  I give my opinions on issues and candidates but who people vote for is their own business. 

And if people vote for someone I don't support I wouldn't tell them they are as dumb as "chicken voting for Colonel Sanders".  That is the height of arrogance.

If you vote against the interests of your own gender/race/sexual orientation, then your priorities can be questioned.  Nobody's saying they don't have a right to do it.

Who are you to tell anyone what you believe in are in their interests regarding their race or anything else?, you aren't.  Many women don't believe in abortion or the interests you claim to know are best for them, so they choose the candidate who supports their views.  And I doubt they need Ashley Judd to tell them who to vote for or against, or anyone for that matter.

If a woman is pro-life, then nobody's going to make them get an abortion.  But it's not the same in reverse, obviously, so pro-choice is in the interest of women in general.

What about the money issue?  Is getting 77% of a man's salary in a woman's best interest?

I know you hate analogies, but would you say that a black man voting for George Wallace couldn't be categorized as "a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders"?  Is there any question about the conflict between Wallace's agenda and a black person's self-interests?

Because your analogies always, always, always, take it to an extreme and then you want to argue that instead of the far less extreme situation in question, one of these days you'll figure that out and stop with your ridiculous analogies.  If you expect me to take the bait that blacks in the 60's with regard to George Wallace are somehow equivalent to women in 2008 and pro-life candidates, then you are nuts. 

Once again, you dishonestly veer the conversation into lala land.  As I keep repeating, if you decide to discuss issues with integrity and honesty, you let me know. Otherwise, find someone else.  Have a nice day.....

Actually, you yourself brought up race.  Isn't that a pretty obvious example of someone who would be voting against their own self-interests based on race?

Are you saying that since it's so extreme, that you can determine what a black person's self-interests are in that case?  Who are you to tell anyone what you believe in are in their interests regarding their race or anything else?

The point is that when you talk about a group's self-interests, you're speaking generally.  A group's interests can be objectively determined.  It has nothing to do with "some people" who don't care about it.

It's possible that Judd was speaking about more than just McCain's position on abortion.

Many women are also aware of McCain's votes to deny women equal pay for equal work, his votes against the increase in the minimum wage, his votes against the Head Start Program, his vote against allowing prescription plans to pay for birth control, his votes against funding for programs to reduce teenage pregnancy, etc.

And many women are also aware of the fact that he called his own wife a c**t in public.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html

In reply to tommy re: "who is she to issue such a blanket condemnation of women not voting the way she does."

Ms. Judd has as much right to her opinion as we both do.  I too find it very hard to understand how any conscious, thinking woman could support the McCain-Palin ticket given Palin's utterances (on the issue of abortion, et el).  As opinions go, equating the brains of such a woman to those of a barnyard fowl may not be flattering, but as a metaphor it works nicely. 

That sure is new. No one has ever claimed abortion had anything to do with a woman's constitutional right to privacy. Oh wait. Actually the Supreme Court did in 1973.

Infantcide is murder. It has NOTHING to do with a woman's right to privacy. Period. And anyone, ANYONE, who says it does it flat out LYING. A legal abortion is not infantcide, because a viable infant is not involved.

Why are these right wing talk show hosts such mental midgets? Just asking.

But not simple to answer clearly. A large part is supporting the ideology and talking points regardless of their worth. I think it does bad things to their brains.

Why are these right wing talk show hosts such mental midgets? Just asking. Easy...because their listening audience is comprised of mental midgets who find comfort and validation in having their narrow-minded opinions, core beliefs and prejudices repeated on a broader stage.

Peebs755...Why...mental midgets?... Because they have finally evolved up the intelligence ladders to that point. It has taken years but they are trying to become normal human beings.

"So, if a woman wants to abort a fetus at any time, even after it's birthed -- after it's a baby -- 'women's privacy.'"

Oh really, Mr. O'Rly? I was always under the impression that the law protected fetuses after being violently pushed out of the mother's womb. Privacy has nothing to do with it. So how the heck does he bring it into this?

Yes, Bill, that's right.  Women's privacy and reproductive rights.  Do you know what that means?  It means I don't want old men like you being anywhere near my vajayjay.

Never fear, OReilly is here.

You know, I just don't understand why his competitors (other than Olbermann) never call him out on his disingenious ego trips. For example, yesterday on his radio show, he said that on the television side tonight he was "going to take care of Barney Frank." He went on to explain how he was "the most powerful guy on the block" and he was going to use that power to expose the politicians (he didn't say what he would expose them as). He then went on to inform his viewers that since he was so powerful, he would begin notifying the FBI about CEO's and others from Wall St. so as to take care of them. Of course he then said "with all due respect to Diretor Mueller, he BETTER do it too." And finally, he went on to distirbute his favorite lie, which is about his ratings. He told a caller that he reaches 10 million people daily and there are 10 million more "who know what he is doing" so he reaches around 10% of the population. LIAR, LIAR LIAR!! O'Reilly gets about 2.1 million viewers each night to his ridiculous television show and about the same on radio. A liberal estimate would be tht he reaches around 5-6 million people. That's a far cry from 20 million, but hey, he's doing everything for YOU...the folks. Just make sure you don't leave your daughter alone with the guy. There is no doubt that in that situation he would "looking out for you", falafel in hand. What a pig!

BTW, check out how John Kerry handled himself the previous night against this pervert. Great stuff.  

For example, yesterday on his radio show, he said that on the television side tonight he was "going to take care of Barney Frank."

How?  Take him out to dinner and a movie???  :-)

 "And a woman voting for McCain and Palin is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders"

Why would I be like a chicken at Colonel Sanders if I were to vote for McCain????  McCain chose a woman for VP.  Obama didn't pick a woman for VP.  McCain helped the  standards for a what a woman can do. 

Give us a break, Lucy.  McCain's VP pick believes that abortion should be illegal, even in the case of incest or rape.  She thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.  She tries to fire people who don't agree with her positions.

There are women who also want to set women's rights back to the stone age.  p.s.  Palin is ignorant and uses girly talk when cornered.  She's embarrassing herself and doesn't even know it.

Maybe McCain will have Palin's Vice-Presidential pay knocked down to 77% of normal scale because she lacks education and training.  Not only would that be hilarious, it might make things clearer for you in this regard.

Incidentally, the standards for what a woman can do were changed in 1984.  McCain picked a woman precisely because Obama didn't pick Hillary.  It's a stunt.  If Hillary had won and picked Biden, McCain would have picked Alan Keyes.  You can bet on it.

Just a little help for you, Lucy:

(1) Find a dictionary;

(2) Look up the word 'metaphor';

(3) Apply said definition to "And a woman voting for McCain and Palin is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

And just because I'm feeling kind today (and a bit pedantic), let me make it easy for you:

A chicken voting for Colonel Sanders (which has been a popular saying for quite some time now) is a way of saying that the chicken is voting against his own self-interests (in this case, the poor chicken's life).

In summary, the quote is basically saying that women who vote for McCain and Palin are voting against their own self-interests - and that's not misinformation, it's the truth.  Witness what other posters have written: McCain/Palin are against abortion.  They are against equal pay for equal work (you, Lucy, as a woman (assumedly) should rail against that, right?).  I coud go on...but I shouldn't need to.  If your political party is more important than you or your family's needs, you have a serious problem.

There were two versions of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) in Illinois.   Obama opposed both versions The original 2001 version was three sentences long.  The third sentence was what is referred to as the "immediate protection clause."  As recently as August 19, 2008, the Obama campaign issued a document that quoted that clause as a particular justification for Obama's opposition to the bill.  This is the clause:  "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."  The August 19, 2008 Obama document called that sentence "Language Clearly Threatening Roe."

Obama was the only senator to speak against that version of the bill on the Illinois Senate floor in 2001.  The basis for his objection was not that the bill was duplicative of existing law, but that it was unconstitutional to define what he called a "previable fetus" as a legal "person," even though the bill did this only with respect to a human who had achieved "complete explusion or extraction" from the mother, and was alive.  The bill passed, but died in a House committee.  The same thing happened in 2002.

By 2003, the Democrats had taken over majority control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became chairman of the committee to which the reintroduced BAIPA was referred.  On March 13, 2003, Obama presided over a committee meeting at which the "immediate protection clause" quoted above was removed from the bill, and replaced with the "neutrality clause" copied verbatim from the federal BAIPA that had been enacted in 2002, without a single dissenting vote in either house of Congress.At this point, the Illinois BAIPA was virtually identical to the federal BAIPA.  Obama then led all of the committee Democrats in voting down the amended bill, killing it.

These events are documented in detail, including quotes of what Obama said about the matter at the time (which is very different from the assertions in made in later years), here:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html

What follows is the entire text of the bill that Obama voted against, and killed, in his committee on March 13, 2003.  Obama and his surrogates have yet to offer any specific example of how it "threatened abortion rights."

AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.  Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:
 
Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows: (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)

Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this Section [the bill] shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

Douglas Johnson

Legislative Director, NRLC

Maybe O'Reilly has a reverse sugar-daddy fetish?

Damn, why did this not post under wzwriter's post, to which the above was directed?

Sheesh...I like this new format, but this issue needs fixing.

You poor poor thing. First off we dems broke that particular barrier back in 84 when Mondale picked Geraldine Ferraro to be his veep (VP or vice president). And second as a female I would no more vote for McSame/Failin if you paid me to (trust me there ain't enough money in the world to make me vote for them) because I value my life and the lives of other women far too much. To even think that a woman must carry to term a fetus that was caused by either rape or incest is too much for most women to bear. That would make them nothing more that baby vessels at the behest of the paternal system. As a whole women have worked to hard to get beyond that status. We are no longer chattel to men. If you choose to be submissive to men go for it it's your choice but I refuse to let you make my choices for me.