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.

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 ?

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.

Ludmilla, Godzilla, and Dogzilla.

Really creative.

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.

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.

Greg, stop editorializing. It was only six states, a third of which are here "home" state. That does not, by any measure, constitute large swathes.

Has anybody considered that the feminist group endorsed Obama because Clinton is making women look bad to the borderline sexists and making feminists look bad to even moderate feminists?

The issue here for me is who made the decision. Is there one person who makes a decision for national NARAL, five people, ten? It seems that whatever the number was, it wasn't enough. The decision was made without the consent of membership. That seems really wrong to me.

I guauntee that most of the membership and financial supporters of NARAL are white women over 40. I'm willing to bet that a majority of their membership still support Hillary over Obama, and as long as that is the case, they should not have endorsed obama.

Unlike Emily's List, NARAL is not an official organ of the Clintonista Party. The endorsement was appropriate and fine.

Non-story IMO.

Of course there will be dissenters.

But once Obama becomes the official nominee, all these chapters will come on board.

And hopefully, those few like this person

http://nomoreapples.blogspot.com/2008/05/naral-texas-not-consulted-on-obama.html

will eventually see the light.

(But it would be nice if Bonnie Grabenhofer, president of Illinois NOW, saw it first)

I am a strong Obama supporter, but to me making this endorsement now is in line with the endorsements of Lieberman and other incumbents by NARAL national -- they consistently try to do what is "safe" and preserves their place in the power structure rather than take any chance that might better serve their supposed cause.

While it is certainly true that the primary race is effectively over, it is not actually over, so the argument that this is "just" a general election endorsement doesn't hold water. (Not to mention that the endorsement press release specifically talks about Obama and Clinton, not Obama vs. McCain.) If they'd wanted to make a general election endorsement, they could have easily waited a few weeks.

Both candidates were strong on the organization's issues, and they had to know that a large chunk if not a majority of the membership would be upset about the choice. So why do it now?

To me, it seems clear that they wanted to jump on the bandwagon before it was too late, while they could still grab a small shred of "we supported you back when," rather than being another liberal organization that of course supports the Democrat. Which would be fine if it served their cause, but I don't see that it makes the slightest difference to an Obama administration's support for abortion rights.

They found thin technical grounds for supporting the incumbent Lieberman rather than supporting Lamont, whose election would have made the Senate friendlier to their cause, and risking the loss of a slight amount of organizational influence if he lost. Similarly, this endorsement is all about the national leadership keeping their place at the head table at Washington events, and little to do with advancing the causes their membership supports.

Hm, I am sure that I will be pelted with eggs around here for saying this, but this is the ideal outcome for an anti-abortion Obama supporter like myself. Obama gets the boost in the democratic primary that comes with the NARAL endorsement, while NARAL itself is torn apart and weakened by infighting. A true win-win...

I agree with Redshift to a point that, technically, there is a difference between all over and all over but the shouting. That said, the difference is so slim as to be invisible to the naked eye.

The Hillary has a chance and why are you bailing on her nonsense needs to stop. She has a right to continue, agreed. That said its over. yes, I know its disappointing but its over. He has the nomination - at this point its inevitible - frankly even if he came completely derailed by something the nomination couldn't be undone until the convention anyway.

In basketball you foul in the last few minutes hoping to stop the clock, hope the opponent doesn't score and that you can score quick to close the gap. BUT you don't do that when its under a minute and you are down by 25 - there's no point to it, it annoys the fans, and frankly its a waste of time. Anyone complaining about NARAL's endorsement at this point is committing a foul when down by 25 and there's 5 seconds on the clock. Its little more than willfully refusing to see reality.

This is in reply to Lux Veritas

You are wrong. I am long time member of a prochoice organization. I have participated in HUNDREDS of endorsement decisions.

This is a PRIMARY endorsement....not a general election endorsement. There are still 2 candiates in the race. No matter whether you think it over or not by whatever judgements you make...there are still 2 candidates....that is the defontion of a contested race.

Indeed National NARAL is perfectly cognizant of that even if you are not, because they take part of the endorsement to praise her...which would be unnecessary if she was no long in the race.

So they endorsed in a primary. It is not usual or considered acceptable endorsement practice to choose between 2 prochoice candidates. That is left to the party process to decide. NARAL is not part of the Democratic party apparatus. They injected themselves into a party primary.

Against a candidate who has been a champion on this issue .....from her 3 year battle to get emergency contraception to be over the counter to her sponsorship of the Freddom of Choice act to codify Roe to her clear and vigorous opposition to Alito and Roberts. The endorsement is not only a slap in the face to her...but it undermines the value of the orgainization's own and futrue endorsements if it is done for reason that are of the political moment rather than on the most compelling issues of the organization itself.

This endorsement devalues any future endorsement by NARAL, it devalues the issue because it was a political decision rather one that advanced the aims of the movement itself.

Proof of that is that this endorsement was made without meetings with th ecandidates, without sitdowns with the candidate, without even a commitment from the candidate to support any particular pro choice measure or important agenda item....oh like there was no commitment to support the codification of Roe or even that really basic one to commit to only appointing prochoice Supreme Court Justices...which one would think might matter since Barack Obama considered voting for Roberts becasue he was so intellectually capable...until an aide warned him it was bad for a prsidential run.....but in a 2005 Daily Kos diary Obama defended the Democrats who voted for Roberts.

They gave away the store and got nothing in return....just like Nancy Keenan did when they endorsed Chaffee 18 months before the electiona dn didn't hold his feet to the fire on Alito and Roberts.

Yes they have lots of angry supporters ...who are engry about demeaning a champion on this issue and selling its soul for less than a bowl of porridge.

This was a decision made once again by the strategically inept Nancy Keenan.....who made bad decisons from Lieberman to Chafee.