NARAL Affiliates Question Mothership's Endorsement Of Obama
WaPo's Garance Franke-Ruta has a nice get: It appears that the ferment continues in the pro-choice movement over NARAL's surprise endorsement of Obama yesterday...
NARAL Pro-Choice America affiliates in key swing and primary states are openly distancing themselves from the decision by NARAL Pro-Choice America to endorse Illinois Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for president.Since yesterday's announcement, NARAL groups in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, Texas and New York -- Clinton's home state -- have issued statements signaling their continued neutrality in the Democratic race and emphasizing that the national group did not speak for them on this matter. These groups represent nearly a quarter of NARAL's state chapters.
NARAL's Missouri chapter was so adamant about remaining neutral that it pumped a robocall yesterday into 8,500 homes stressing that many in its membership are strong supporters of Hillary.
Obviously the NARAL endorsement was a huge get for Obama, but you can't avoid the fact that this was a really mystifying decision for NARAL to make. All it did was alienate huge swaths of its membership and fundraising base, and it's hard to see how the endorsement did anything to accomplish the group's stated goal of uniting African Americans and female activists.
Comments (125)
I'm not surprised that local affiliates are angry at something the national group decided to do, particularly after NARAL chose to back "Rape gurney" Joe Lieberman here in CT.
May 15, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a really bad decision by NARAL in backing Lieberman.
May 15, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was a terrible decision. But that was a state NARAL decision. And it has nothing to do with the Obama endorsement.
May 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for pointing out it was a state chapter. That certainly changes my perception of NARAL.
May 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure it was the other way around, The national chapter endorsed Lieberman, but the CT chapter actually distanced themselves from that.
here is a link it doesn't say whether it was the state or local branch, but the (now dead) link goes to the national chapter of NARAL, not the state.
So yeah, you actually have it backwards.
May 15, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, indeed.
The NATIONAL office backed Lieberman, against the wishes of the local office.
May 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! I stand corrected.
That's absolutely no way to run an organization!
On the other hand, it still has no bearing on the Obama decision, which involves the endorsement of a national candidate.
May 15, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
HUH?
The local NARAL here backed Lamont. The national NARAL backed Lieberman.
May 15, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
No shit and every time they've called me since I've told them to take and hike and told them that's why - they wouldn't back Ned Lamont and I washed my hands of NARAL from that point on.
May 15, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree that the NARAL endorsement was a good get for Camp Obama, I do wish they would have waited until after the nomination was settled before they endorsed.
I don't blame their members or their affiliates for being miffed.
Of course, I believe that union and organizational endorsements should wait until the general, but I digress...
May 15, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think NARALs timing was because they consider the nomination already settled.
They have a point, Obama has won, it is over. Nobody booked passage on the Titanic AFTER the iceberg hit it.
May 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haha, I like that, true true.
May 15, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, but as I mentioned to LuxVeritas, as long as Hillary is telling her supporters that the race is not over, the race is not over and the endorsement was premature, in their eyes. And NARAL should have been sensitive to that.
May 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why? Why does NARAL owe any loyalty to Hillary? Why isn't there endorsement about backing the individual that they believe will ensure that pro-choice rights are protected for women?
May 15, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think they owe Hillary a damned thing. Trust me, I'm happy that Obama can get the support of traditionally female-oriented organizations.
But NARAL should have realized that, in an election year that is this divisive, and knowing their members could feel very passionate about their chosen candidate for the nomination, there would have been a backlash. They could have waited until Hillary either concedes or the convention, and their members wouldn't have batted an eye at the endorsement. As it stands, they now have hundreds of messages from members who will not refuse to donate money, cancel their memberships, etc.
May 15, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point. But, NARAL has an agenda that goes beyond Hillary. And its members ought to recognize that. It's not a tool to advance the political career of Hillary Rodham Clinton. No doubt they'll have some backlash. But, I would expect them to be able to absorb that and move on with their actual mission - to do what they can and must to protect pro-choice rights for women.
May 15, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last time I remember hillary doing anything choice-related, it was working with republicans to restrict it...
May 15, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand what you are saying but respectfully disagree. Thier endorsement after the primary season has officially ended would net them nothing, hell, I doubt anybody would even notice. Of course they aren't going to endorse McSame, if they did thier entire organization would go belly up overnight. By endorsing now they gain a certain amount of leverage over Obama, well, not leverage so much as access.
Endorsements meen little, forgone-conclusion-endorsements meen absolutely nothing. Think about it; organaizations like the SFFOTP (the Society For Fucking Over The Poor) always endorse the GOP candidate. To do anything else would be treason. So then the question becomes one of timing.
May 15, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read this?
THAT is why I think they should have waited. Those are some pissed-off members there.
May 15, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
effing A.
One of the comments was how NARAL sold out to the american left, as if that wasn't where every good idea this nation has had came from, including birth control and women's rights...
May 15, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every time any organization endorses anyone some members of said organization get pissed. The same thing happened with unions. Hillary, who sat on the board of wallmart and did nothing for unions, got plenty of union support. I have no doubt that angered some, but as she was the "inevitable" nominee union members got over it.
This isn't any different.
May 15, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
But it is settled, and everyone knows it, so this outrage is ridiculous. Hell, look at the intrade market, Obama is almost as high as McCain and he has been the official mathematically unbeatable Republican nominee for months now!
IT IS OVER, there is no reason that NARAL or anywhere else should sit on the sidelines out of respect to the fact that Hillary has a vagina and Obama doesn't. But that's what this is all about, they are attacking NARAL for being some kind of gender-traitor, just like how they attacked Oprah when she endorsed Obama, just like they attacked Bill Richardson and Kennedy and everyone else they felt they were somehow "entitled" to. It is shameful how these people are reacting, but it is par for the course from Hillary and her hardcore supporters. This was NEVER about the Democratic Party or the issues or shared values, it was always personal, always about HER and HER quest for power. I'm sick of it, and completely disgusted that these people are in the same party as me, and call themselves pro-choice when they put identity politics above all else, and with such vitriol.
May 15, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. By intrade's reckoning, Obama's odds of not getting the nomination are barely greater than John McCain dropping dead before the convention!
May 15, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you and I and most Obama supporters agree that the race is over.
But as long as Hillary keeps on telling her supporters that it's not over, it's not over in their minds and NARAL should have been sensitive to that.
May 15, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
They did hold off until the nomination was essentially a done deal, however. Why shouldn't their nomination influence politics... is it supposed to be meaningless?
May 15, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I think you (and Carol and nisleib and others) are right. I was falling into the whole "Oh Noes! What will we ever do??!?" hand-wringing trap.
Inhale pink, exhale blue.
May 15, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that what's interesting here is the notion that these advocacy groups should have fealty to a particular candidate - rather than advocating for whatever candidate will advance their advocacy issue.
In this case, there's a presumption that pro-choice is joined with feminists and that feminists back Hillary. I think that's not a perfect marriage.
What probably is true is that their membership at State and local levels may be disproportionately supporters of the Hillary campaign. You could argue that there's some disjointedness in their endorsement in that sense - but that's an internal issue for their organization. It doesn't suggest that the endorsement itself was inappropriate politically.
May 15, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would NARAL's timing be inappropriate but Emily's List and the NY Chapter of NOW's vehement endorsements long ago okay?
May 15, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was a GENERAL ELECTION endorsement, are these people THAT stupid?? How do they not get this? This had nothing to do with Hillary and everything to do with Obama vs McCain. Do they expect NARAL and the pro-choice movement to remain neutral until November? We all know Hillary CANNOT WIN. SHE HAS LOST! Why should people wait to endorse until August or October or December or never when Hillary finally "officially" gives up? Her chances of winning now and her chances of winning in three months are the same: ZERO. So what the hell is the problem with this? They never said Obama was better than Hillary, they just said what everyone knows: this primary is over, we have our nominee, now let's take on the real threat to reproductive rights: John McCain.
I swear NARAL members are a bunch of children.
May 15, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I pile on? Even if you set aside whether or not she can win (which is a bit like talking about water but setting aside the Atlantic and Pacific oceans), of the NARAL affiliates listed as flipping out about this, the only state that hasn't already held a primary is Oregon! Are the other states still weighing John Dubya McCain as a possible endorsee?
May 15, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton supporters in, and out, of NARAL are the last people to realize that Clinton has already lost. So, no, they simply cannot understand that the general election campaign has begun in all but name and that Hillary Clinton is, at least so long as she keeps her primary campaign active, almost wholly irrelevant to it.
On the other hand, it has been absolutely clear that many Clinton supporters don't understand this, so NARAL should have recognized that its decision would result in a firestorm of protest from Clinton supporters (perhaps even with organizational support from the Clinton campaign).
My guess is that NARAL figured (probably correctly) that Clinton supporters will figure out sooner rather than later that they've lost, that they will then begin to support Obama (despite what exit polls might say), that the NARAL general election endorsement of Obama might hasten that realization of defeat, and that NARAL gains little by waiting around for Clinton supporters before getting going on the general election fight.
May 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Everyone who doesn't think like you is stupid.
Must be tough, sometimes, being a member of the elite "smart" group, when the group of "stupids" is so large. How do you ever bear the burden?
Thanks.
mp
May 15, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, but since NARAL is a voluntary org, if they don't agree with my position then they aren't getting my support or money and that is a consideration for NARAL or any other group and a legitimate one.
.
May 15, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would tread lightly if I were you, Mikey. Anybody who comes here can click on your name and be instantly linked to the crap that has been spewing out of your keyboard over the last few days.
What's that old quote about "removing all doubt"?
May 15, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand the thought process of the local affiliates.
They don't say they are mad they endorsed Obama. They say they wish they had waited. If they know Naral would have endorsed anyway, why wait ?
May 15, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only NARAL, but unions and the party itself are experiencing internal fights as this struggle drags on. That is what is going to happen as long as there is not certainty. The Superdelegates need to make their preferences known and bring the mess to an end, so we can all unite behind a nominee and get on with it. If they are going to rush to Clinton -- highly unlikely -- they should make that known. If they are going to go toward Obama in sufficient numbers to resolve this, they should do that now. In organizational life and politics, it is often presumed that delay is costless. But in fact, delay and prolonged uncertaintly are often the costliest options, at least for the interests of the whole endeavor. Right now, delay only helps McCain.
May 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely, Prof. Skocpol!
It cannot be stressed enough that this campaign represents a complete failure of the superdelegate system itself.
The superdelegates were instituted to avoid drawn-out primary fights like the Democratic Party experienced in 1980.
With no superdelegate involvement, this race would be entirely over, as Obama will clearly receive a majority of the pledged delegates.
What's dragging things out is the remaining 237 undecided superdelegates' refusal to choose. And that refusal is actually pretty understandable. Far from being objective judges of what's good for the party, the superdelegates tend to have a personal interest in the outcome of the race. As elected and party officials, they potentially stand to lose influence if they back a losing candidate in a close race. And it's not clear that they gain by declaring earlier for a winner.
Even if the superdelegates finally flocked to Obama, the fact that they are never bound might allow a second-place candidate to nurture the fantasy of flipping them before the actual convention vote. In 1980, Kennedy had to place his slender hopes on convincing the delegates to change the rules so that they would even be allowed to change their vote. But superdelegates are already entirely free to vote anyway they want, regardless of what verbal commitments they've given.
Thus, far from bringing about a swift and decisive resolution, the superdelegates are now the problem. That party leaders in the early 1980s felt that superdelegates were a plausible solution to the party's problems reflects how suspicious Democratic Party elites were (and to a certain extent still are) of grassroots party activists, who were automatically blamed for whatever electoral and organizational problems the party experienced.
May 15, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
If only you had spoken like this about the need for unity back when, instead of coming out with a vengeance against Hillary Clinton and then some as you did. You have no standing to speak about unity. You chose divisiveness in this campaign, and you don't fool any of us who read what you chose to write, and the positions you chose to take. You are a divider and not a uniter, and you should remain in places like Election Central where the other Hillary haters roam. Words do matter, and they will. In your case, your words have done nothing to help Senator Obama, whom this Hillary Clinton supporter will vote for in November without hesitation, but with the poison you spewed about Hillary Clinton, you have indeed done your part to help the Republicans, including John McCain. Nice work.
May 15, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you presuming here that Prof. Skopcol was divisive in failing to support Hillary? That anyone who did not fall lockstep behind Hillary is a traitor to the Democratic Party? Do you really believe that? Please explain your position here Bslev.
May 15, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carol, the professor has every right to express her positions about the Clintons, but I have the right to call her on unity language when I feel that it conflicts with her prior comments. I'm just into pointing out hypocrisy; I think she should stick to hating the Clintons. For example, and then you can all have fun with me, here's what the professor wrote in April:
"I think this whole angle of "gotcha" politics about snippets of speech transposed from one context to another is ridiculous and pathological for democracy in America -- and I cannot fathom why the Clintons or George Stephanopoulos are descending to this dirt, not to mention the guilt-by-association crap. It is particularly despicable of them to criticize Obama for the sort of observation/analysis that was routine in and around the 1990s Clinton White House. And I cannot help but feel there is a psychological edge of pure envy in Bill Clinton's attacks: Obama is empathetic and charismatic as well as smart, just like Bill was back then, in those so much better days!
"Over and out. I am going to try to find a way to preserve in amber my better memories and feelings about the Clintons, so as not to lose altogether the sense of admiration I once felt, but can no longer".
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/17/what_she_said/
I don't question the professor's right to discuss what went on in meetings with the Clintons in 1995, or to criticize them the way she did above. I do have the right to question her credentials as a unifier based upon things that she has previously written, and that's just what I have done.
Let the name-calling continue.
May 15, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The passage you highlight doesn't establish your point. Rather it ENFORCES the notion that the Clinton campaign has engaged in tactics that it deplored ad nausem during the 1990s. Some would call it hypocrisy. Me, I settle on political expediency and desperation.
The reality is that the Clinton campaign made it's bed and is now having to lie in it. That doesn't mean that we all can't move forward to the fall. On the contrary, the willingness to move forward by progressive, including the Professor, in SPITE of the Clinton's tactics, bodes well for true unification in the coming months.
Obama is the Democratic Nominee. It's time to circle the wagons and make the final push to November. Hopefully you and other Clinton supporters agree.
May 15, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
May 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have the nervous twitch to. Laughing when I don't really have a response. See, we have common ground.
May 15, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have responded and then some. I laughed at your response because you are unable to understand how what the professor wrote affects different people differently. Everyone knows that you hate Hillary Clinton, so why would you have any problem with what the professor wrote? That's why I laughed, if you really wanted an explanation.
May 15, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see anything divisive about the quote you pulled. In fact, I support it 100%. That has been THE MAIN PROBLEM with Hillary's campaign for a lot of Democrats. She has shown no reservations about doing exactly what she has so long decried. It's sad, really. Pointing that fact out doesn't mean you're attacking Hillary; unless holding up a mirror in front of her face constitutes attacking her. To many of us, she has become what she claimed to be so stridently against...
May 15, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine, but don't think that you can help to unify the Party when those who you seek to unify are aware of how you and others feel and what you have written. Of course, not everyone is an avid reader of these pages so maybe you and others can hide what you've written. It's cool. You've made your choices, and I don't question your sincerity. But you need to leave the unity stuff to others, that is to the extent you are dealing with those of us who have read what you've written in this campaign. Don't worry; not everyone supporting Obama has an Election Central mentality. There are many unifiers like me who have not denigrated the integrity of either candidate, and so I promise to do what I can to help elect Senator Obam (as I've proudly done for every Democratic candidate since 1984 (I skrewed up in 1980 and voted for Barry Commoner and I won't do that again) :)).
May 15, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
No name-calling, but I will point out that your logic here basically precludes anyone who previously advocated for one or the other candidate from transitioning, once a winner is clear (now), to advocating for party unity.
We're not going to get very far like that.
May 15, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is work to do, yes, but in the real world people will come together. Senator Obama will have the support of the vast and substantial majority of Clinton supporters, regardless of the pain that has been caused by what has been written at places like TPM. I just think it's ridiculous and disingenuous, and frankly synthetic, to simply ignore what people have written in the past in this community. If, for example, you hated Hillary last week, if last week you called her supporters racists or supporters or excusers of racism last week, why should that be ignored this week? How can it be ignored?
May 15, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
bruce,
i don't know, i don't read those particular quotes as being especially divisive or vengeful even though i tend to agree with your larger point.
May 15, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carol:
You write:
"Aren't you presuming here that Prof. Skopcol was divisive in failing to support Hillary? That anyone who did not fall lockstep behind Hillary is a traitor to the Democratic Party."
I have a long record here. Back up this presumption with something, please. You're chiding the wrong guy. But perhpas that's how it works at Election Central. So I won't try to convince you otherwise.
May 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
My questions to you and requests for clarification were because I was surprised and confused by your response to Prof. Skocpol. She make some insightful comments about how NARAL's endorsement and other impending endorsements by key groups and SuperDels can potentially bring an end to this primary and transition us smoothly into the General Election. You then responded to her by calling her a divider and suggesting that she restrict her comments to the Cafe.
I read the column that you excerpted from Prof. Skocpol previously in the cafe, and I suppose that you support Hillary's campaign and resent Prof. Skocpol's previous comments. I still don't think that makes her a divider, but that's neither here nor there. I just felt like her comment in this section in regards to NARAL's endorsement was relevant and insightful and didn't understand where you were coming from in your response to her here.
May 15, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you clinging to guns and religion also? Cuz you sure are bitter.
May 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will not respond to you; I will to the poster above. I consider you to be one of the idiots.
May 15, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that, but I think you take a damn harsh stance against the Prof., though I just thought some levity was in order.
But thanks for the insult!
May 15, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dorn:
When you start writing to me without insulting me I will stop calling things as I see them. I am not in the habit of calling a fellow poster an idiot.
May 15, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, agreed, but you had to see the humor in calling you "bitter" given I also added the "clinging to guns and religion" part....Which I thought was somewhat self-deprecating coming from an Obama supporter like myself. No offense intended.
May 15, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
None taken.
May 15, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, no insult meant then. But I'm still an idiot. I get it.
May 15, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, you are not an idiot. Withdrawn.
May 15, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
and it's hard to see how the endorsement did anything to accomplish the group's stated goal of uniting African Americans and female activists.
Huh? How would staying neutral at this moment accomplish that goal? Neutrality is a tacit endorsement of Hillary Clinton, and supporting Obama would raise their esteem in the AA community.
Besides, it isn't like "Women" as a class don't support Obama, it's just older women. Younger women who are the future of the feminist movement are much more likely to support Obama and are probably alienated by the "Vote for Clinton because she's a woman, no matter what" attitude of many of the older feminists who seem to support her based solely on gender.
Plus, Young women are the ones who would be most affected by pro-choice issues.
May 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is silliness. NARAL's endorsement is appropriate. Obama has a strong pro-choice record, as does Hillary. The only reason to back Hillary over Obama would be because she's a woman. And I really don't see the point of that.
May 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely.
I hope these "women scorned" will get the hell over it - and soon.
May 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you seen the kind of insanity they're descending into at in the bunkers of Hillary's last redoubts on the Internet?
I suspect that a lot of Hillary's remaining supporters are just people for whom mathematical realities are not real, the kind of people who'll sit watching returns come in after its been called, 86% of the precincts are in and their candidate is behind by 16 points believing that the remaining 14% of the precincts can still turn it around. They're not going to get over it it until its official because they simply don't get math.
Then there are the commenters at Hillis44 and Taylor's marsh. They've sealed themselves off from reality and they perpetually egg each other on into ever greater depths of insanity. There is no rumor or slander about Barack too vile to be believed and embellished and no fact about Hillary too big or too incontrovertible to be ignored or denied. They'll never get over it.
I hope there's a sociology or psych grad student watching what's going on over there, because there's material enough for a dozen dissertations.
May 15, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ludmilla, Godzilla, and Dogzilla.
Really creative.
May 15, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahem - Milo, Mila- same troll.
May 15, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno -- doesn't use the same sentence construction as Milo.
May 15, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't feed the trolls.
May 15, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
He has a 100% rating from the group, has been a consistent and dependable defender of a woman's right to choose and he's going to be the nominee. None of these FACTS are in dispute. So, I fail to see what the controversy is all about. Unless this is because he has a penis, or rather doesn't have a vagina. I hope that's not the case.
May 15, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ding! Ding! Ding!
It's the penis, IMO.
May 15, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't comment on why the message boards were swamped with outrage yesterday. My beef with this endorsement is that, once again, the national office is ignoring, or discarding, the local affiliates.
The sort of top-down, "we know better" approach that really rankles me.
Obama most certainly deserves their endorsement and so does Clinton, so it's not who they endorsed that I take issue with, it's how it was done.
May 15, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll grant your point (about process), but I think the larger issue is that they (the National Office) was attempting to turn toward the real threat to their group: John McCain. The fact that these local offices are getting bent out of shape about a general election endorsement detracts from that critical point.
McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. That needs to be repeated often.
May 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you wholly and I went to their site and commented thusly:
May 15, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Plus there is something to be said for making a decision and riding out the initial furor. I wish more superdelegates would follow NARAL's lead. This charade needs to end . . . OFFICIALLY.
May 15, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this needs to be over STAT. If I hadn't know the history of NARAL/Lieberman, I'd have nothing to say about this endorsement, other than, great!
I understand the timing issue that others have raised, so it makes sense that they would come out now. And if Hillary Clinton were Henry Clinton, people wouldn't be going berserk over this announcement. So, as you and others have pointed out, the furor has to do with the fact that NARAL backed a man rather than a woman.
How sad, and trivial.
May 15, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The controversy is that it's being spun as a slam against Hillary rather than an endorsement of Obama. It's silly because, and I say this not to belittle NARAL's influence, their endorsement isn't going to change the outcome of this nomination process. They're not knee-capping Hillary - she already lost the battle.
May 15, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
In the first place, NARAL doesn't have the national chops that Planned Parenthood has - it's not as well known and it's not organized as well - and this argument is kind of evidence of that.
They fucked up badly by refusing to endorse Ned Lamont and I question their political wisdom - it's sorely lacking, IMO.
May 15, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The NARAL endorsement will help bring together voters if it encourages Clinton to get out of the race. IIf it were assured that Clinton would drop out immediately after Puerto Rico, then NARAL's decision would indeed look pretty foolhardy. But I don't think there's any guarantee that Clinton *will* drop out before the convention (or even, god help us, afterwards) unless the party makes it very clear that she has absolutely, positively, inarguably, no way of winning. The only way that she can be made to go is if somebody, somewhere, takes some political chances, and tells her she's lost. That's what NARAL is doing; it's what John Edwards did. And both those endorsements, I think, make it at least marginally more likely that Clinton will do the right thing and endorse the nominee sooner rather than later.
May 15, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I suppose that's why this is seen as a betrayal. Because the endorsement recognizes that HRC can't win the nomination. But, that's not news really to anyone. It's reality and it's in everyone's best interests, with the exception of Hillary's personal interests, to recognize that and move forward.
May 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The national leadership of NARAL is being smart. They are making sure that they will have access to the Democratic Nominee, and potentially the next president. They could not afford to delay. Women's reproductive rights issues are far too important to play the short sighted, going down with the ship, game. The local chapters can dither all they want to, but the national leadership will need access to the leader of the Democratic party. They had to get on board now. Good for them for recognizing that.
May 15, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
liam - you are right. I totally agree with you.
May 15, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of the wisdom of NARAL's timing, I simply don't understand the *anger* at them for this endorsement. Looking at both Clinton and Obama in a vacuum, there's not really a whole lot of difference with respect to reproductive choice. You can probably make a case that one or the other is a *stronger* advocate of reproductive rights even though their voting records are similar, but still, both candidates are clearly pretty darn pro-choice.
What's the worse possible thing that can happen to NARAL's cause? Quite simply, it's a McCain presidency. Look at the Supreme Court right now and it's pretty easy to see that the next president will have a good shot at making 1 or 2 appointments to the bench even in their first term. It seems to me that NARAL probably wanted to sit out and refrain from endorsing in the primary and to then come out and endorse the Democratic candidate after the nomination is over.
But what if NARAL starts sensing that the Democratic Primary is damaging to the Democrats and gives McCain a better shot at winning the presidency? In that case, even if you think that Clinton is on the merits better for reproductive rights than Obama, isn't it reasonable to place a higher priority on keeping McCain out of office and doing whatever is possible to prevent that?
I guess what I am saying is that I can understand Clinton's supporters being *disappointed* in NARAL's decision. But *angry*? Give me a break. Democrats on both sides are missing a hell of a lot of perspective these days.
May 15, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a reminder here. The Clinton campaign pulled a fast one on pro-choice women in New Hampshire by duping a group of their leaders into signing on to a flyer that deliberately misled them about Obama's record on choice.
Can't remember if that happened before or after Kyle-Lieberman, but that's when she lost this aging, white, pro-choice feminist.
None of the similar women that I know are any longer supporting Clinton for various reasons, but that is mine.
So let's remember that a significant portion of us no longer relevant crones deserted her long ago.
I sent NARAL a small check and a nice note today, figured they could use a little cheering up.
I hope their stated goal of helping to heal the divide between avid feminist Clinton supporters and African Americans works out, but there's an old wound there that pre-dates this campaign and these candidates.
May 15, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was after Kyl-Zellberman.
May 15, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, nice!
May 15, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry - how is alienating a huge portion of your donor/activist base smart?
The endorsement may help Obama, if only by making his nomination seem that much more inevitable, but it really doesn't gain much for NARAL. They already had access to a Democratic nominee, regardless of who it was.
If they'd backed him earlier, it might have bought them some extra pull. Backing him now just makes them look like bandwagon-jumpers.
May 15, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
NARAL simply recognised that not to endorse Obama was to endorse McSame. And, perhaps, NARAL recognizes that it needs to represent the interests of women who are not menopausal. HRC and her crowd don't have to worry about unwanted pregnancies... they are too old to get pregnant. Hence, we see HRC promoting John McSame.
May 15, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
A simple question to the unhappy affiliates: Are you really willing to give the WH to John McSame? Endorsing HRC is the same thing as endorsing John McSame. The NARAL endorsement is about facing reality: HRC is the loser.
May 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Endorsing McSame or even HRC aren't the only alternatives.
They didn't need to endorse anyone until after the Dems declare a winner.
They just screwed someone who's been a gre