"Mr. [Michael] Yaki assuaged their concerns by beefing up previous platforms' language on a woman's right to choose. 'We put a woman's right to choose in a lock box and strengthened the language significantly,' he says. 'We needed it to assure that we were not backtracking.'"
     From "The Real Story of the Democrats' Abortion Plank," by Steven Waldman, in the Wall Street Journal.

Okay, let's cut to the evasions, which won't take long because they begin early and run through a piece that could have been written by Sen. Obama himself. Steven Waldman tells us Obama's "team and allies did succeed in crafting a plank that opposing camps could agree on. They showed skill at mediation and bridge building. They made pro-choicers feel comfortable taking a new step but reassuring them on their basic concerns. They made pro-lifers give in on several small points to get one big victory."

Wrong, wrong, and--did I mention?--wrong? If the goal is to paint the junior senator from Illinois as Mr. Hands Across the Water, Waldman deserves kudos from the Obama camp. If the goal is to give readers something other than a pie-in-the-sky assessment, the piece is painfully, even embarrassingly inadequate.

That's my assessment. You can judge for yourself by going to http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/2008/08/19/the-real-story-of-the-democrats-abortion-plank.

My bottom line is simple. The "pro-life progressives" surrendered on every front. They made every possible concession to "assuage" the nervous nellies of the pro-abortion camp.

For example, any suggestion that killing the child and allowing the child to live were anything but equally valid alternative options--Coke or Pepsi--was discarded.

Could NARAL, NOW, EMILY List, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization for Women at least agree to "clear language casting the Democratic Party as supporting a reduction in the number of abortions and not merely a reduction in the 'need' for abortion"? Surely you jest.

"[T]he pro-choice forces adamantly insisted that the word 'need' remain," Waldman tells us. He then quotes from the representative from the "Third Way," described as "a progressive group that has helped forge a platform compromise." Says Rachel Laser, "Reducing the need is the only terminology that the pro-choice community is comfortable with – for good reason."

Why? An "intense fear of the slippery slope." That explains why the "pro-life progressives" buckled even on partial-birth abortions. Gosh, if you can't crush the skull of a kid inches away from a full-delivery and vacuum out her brains, where will it all end?

[A far more level-headed assessment appears elsewhere in the paper. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121919073108155085.html?mod=djemEditorialPage. Naomi Schaeffer Riley picks up on many of the same points we made earlier in the week and comes to the conclusion that the new language seems to have accomplished the near impossible: Democrats "have moved to the left on abortion."]

Should I begrudge "pro-life progressives" their day in the sun? After all, don't they tell us once a day and twice on Sunday that they are making progress?

Well, would it be unkind to wonder if they aren't awfully, awfully grateful for being "included in the conversation?" Would it be unfair to mention that Waldman does not mention that the word "rare" has been excised from the formula that abortions are to be "safe, legal, and rare," or that the adamancy of the resistance to any legal protection has been ramped up?

And would it be making too big a deal to observe that while "pro-life progressives" and the entire Abortion Establishment are happy with the formulation, we see it as a complete capitulation? Oh, I guess it would.

After all this self-selected group of "pro-life progressives" has designated itself as one the two "opposing camps"--the ones Waldman proudly tells us could "agree" on the new platform language--so what if NRLC finds this worse than much ado about nothing?

I have no problem with Waldman and his friends wanting to elect pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama President. That is their right.

I do have lots and lots of problems with them pretending to speak for the pro-life community and giving a pass to the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to be nominated for President.

Please send your comments and observations to daveandrusko@hotmail.com.