Reed equivocates on abortion and abiding

Sounds like Ms. Reed is trying to find the middle between Ms. Clark and Ms. Bachmann on an issue where few voters are truly “in the middle.”

I speculate that she just decreased her already slim chances to become the DFL-endorsed candidate by these two equivocations.

It will be a truly interesting race if Ms. Bachmann’s in-party challenges decide to ignore the party’s endorsement, and Ms. Reed decides to ignore the likely DFL endorsement of Ms. Clark. If so, the Mn 6th voters will have a true array of political choices. Just need to sprinkle in a Green and a Libertarian, and we’d have the full spectrum.

People are losing their jobs, houses, health care; dying and getting sick.

I do not think abortion and intraparty politics are the top concerns of most voters in the 6th district.

Dr. Reed’s positions on these two issues should be palatable to most people, her stances and experience on the other issues are what she should be judged on by DFL delegates when deciding if she would better represent us in Congress than Tarryl Clark, and if she would be better suited to beat Michele Bachmann than Tarryl Clark.

It seems to me that Reed really gets the abortion issue: it isn’t all black and white and I commend her for not backing down from her position. The 6th district needs someone who can stand up for themselves and the district, and I think Reed is just the person to do it.

Also, I agree with MNBlue, intra-party politics should not be the most important issue right now!

Hmmm, so the DFL endorsement process has now been reduced to just “intraparty politics” that don’t matter? Tell that to the DFL precinct caucus attendees and delegates to the 6th CD convention, where the endorsement will be made by said delegates. Most will want to hear a clear answer from all candidates on whether they’re wasting their time engaging in the endorsement process. And most do not want to see the DFL have to slog through a primary campaign next year before taking on Bachmann. One can only surmise that Reed’s refusal to answer Black’s question on this signals her intention to go a primary if she loses the endorsement battle. Her presumption that she will be the nominee and therefore a backup plan is not necessary is arrogant at best.

Sounds like a Blue Dog to me. We can do better without them.

“People are losing their jobs, houses, health care; dying and getting sick.” Yes, but Reed and Clark each presumably knows that and thinks it a current evil.

What will either do about that, what relative likelihood is there that one or the other would have the best chance of ousting Bachmann?

Then, with those obvious points, a party caucus threshold pair of questions is – where on rights of women and their families to choose regarding family birth and rearing as a planned thing; and where on abiding by a party decision when seeking a party endorsement actually happen to be threshold party questions, as I understand the process Karl mentions.

Like it or love it, it’s how it is. Also, which of the two has the longer and stronger record of party service; showing up at the lower-ticket fundraisers around the district, etc., will be a factor – clearly in favor of Clark. Again, like it or love it.

In any event, Reed has to either take stands or be viewed as cowardly about taking stands. It’s either or, since she’s not so dumb as to not understand the downside of playing cute. Is she?

Okay, Ms. Reed: I agree that we need to drop this pro- and anti- crap. Let’s reframe the debate. Are you in support of women’s civil rights? Well, are ya?