« The New Magic Number: 2,210 Delegates | Home | Big Pro-Hillary Group Looking To Make Ad Buy In Oregon »
NARAL Endorses Obama -- Hillary Spokesperson Is "Surprised"
Obama scores the endorsement of NARAL, a key get by any measure.
Here's the key graf, from the Associated Press story, which explains the thinking of NARAL board members...
They said the board decided to back Obama over Clinton because he is overwhelmingly favored to win the nomination and to heal what the organization viewed as a growing rift between black voters and white female activists that the protracted Clinton-Obama contest may have caused.
Which confirms Ben Smith's observation that this endorsement is another "sign of the party coalescing" around Obama.
On the Hillary conference call, Hillary spokesperson was asked about NARAL's choice. "Surprised, would be my response," Wolfson said. "I think Senator Clinton's leadership on advocacy and choice issues is second to none."
Advertisement
Nicely done NARAL. Can we assume they didn't have a VP choice?
May 14, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great timing.
May 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you see NARAL doesn't count, it's like all those caucus states - insignificant.
May 14, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And NARAL is obviously sexist -- right HillaryClinton08?
May 14, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
NARAL has a well-documented prejudice against tri-testicled professional boxers.
May 14, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you mean "sexiest." ;-)
May 14, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the momentum is really with Hillary now!
Run for the (Appalachia) hills everyone!
May 14, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear that those pro-choice advocates in New Hampshire who signed their names to that last minute mailer that Clinton sent out that attacked Obama's commitment to choice that turned out to be a total smear job were pretty surprised too.
Karma will catch up to you in the end. Ask Bush.
May 14, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There goes one of Hillary's main claims as to why she should be the VP pick.
Realistic feminist leaders are going to support Senator Obama, with having Hillary on the ticket.
The fact that Hillary's Campaign Cluster admit that they were taken by surprise by the NARAL endorsement, shows that they still are an out of touch dysfunctional operation.
Senator Obama, stay away from the Clinton operation.
It would give you Campaign Incompetence Cooties!!
May 14, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
edit:
without having Hillary on the ticket.
May 14, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know...I've been a staunch supporter of Obama NOT putting Hillary on the ticket, but the virulence of the comments on NARAL's blog surprised even me. I was appalled at some of the things these Hillary supporters were saying, it was absolutely mind-boggling.
You're right that we'll get the 90% of the women's movement that is rooted in reality, but that remaining 10% may not be something we want to write off.
May 14, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Solution:
Obama/Sebelius 2008
May 14, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second that motion!
May 15, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take it from Wolfson's responce that he found out from reporters on the call.
He had a ready answer, but the unanamous decision by the NARAL board tends to trump his assertion that Hillary is second to none on choice issues.
As with just about everything else in this primary, she is (at least) second to Senator OBama.
May 14, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly enough, National Right to Life endorsed Sen Clinton in the IN and NC primaries. Goodness only knows why, given that there is not a hair's bredth of difference between the two on this issue. Maybe it was the NRtL endorsement which pushed NARAL over to endorsing Obama?
May 14, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
More likely they've simply realized that there's a lot more to gain towards advancing abortion rights by being a part of the next Democratic administration than in joining Hillary's own private Wagnerian ending.
I don't expect they'll be the last.
May 14, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe she did the wink wink to them like she did to Canada on NAFTA?
May 14, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howzabout' telling us less than strung out poli freaks who the you-know-what is NARAL. Thro a dog a bone, dude(ette)
May 14, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
National Abortion Rights Action League.
May 14, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes using "the" Google is helpful...
http://www.naral.org/
You'll get all the info you need there! ;)
May 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
NARAL Pro-Choice America (pronounced "NAY-ral") is a pro-choice organization in the United States that engages in political action to oppose restrictions on abortion and expand access to abortion. NARAL is often used as a short form of the name.
May 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
...that is not all they do... They also advocate for age appropriate "comprehensive sex education" in our schools, as well as advocating for the right to have easy access to contraception for practical family planning.
They also provide many other advocacy programs that help both women and men plan their lives...
May 14, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
www.naral.org
May 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Search for it.
May 14, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surprised? If he says he is surprised then there must be a part of him that thinks she can still win. Denial, it ain't just a river in Egypt.
May 14, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS...
May 14, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
IS
May 14, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT
May 14, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS!
May 14, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOR
May 14, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY!!
May 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary?
May 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOR
May 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOR
May 14, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary
May 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY!!!!!!!!
May 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.
That reads like campaign '08 Steve Reich piece.
I'll be hearing echo-filled variations on
EXCELLENT
EXCELLENT NEWS
FOR
NEWS
FOR
FOR
HILLARY
FOR
FOR
HILLARY
HILLARY
FOR
HILLARY
HILLARY
HILLARY
in my head all day.
May 14, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's haunting, ain't it?
May 14, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
NARAL once employed someone who was homophobic, so Senator Obama, can you please tell us why you are homophobic and hate gays?
May 14, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got to be worth a good 20 supers psychologically.
May 14, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT
May 14, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
and to heal what the organization viewed as a growing rift between black voters and white female activists that the protracted Clinton-Obama contest may have caused.
Huh. It is interesting to see them making this point explicit.
May 14, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I thought so too. I'm glad someone is saying what needs to be said, in pretty blunt terms - perhaps more people will start saying the same thing...
May 14, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just spent the weekend with a bunch of feminist, pro-choice academics -- like other latte-sipping eggheads, almost all of them preferred Obama to Clinton, and even the Clinton supporter I talked to was taken aback by the race-baiting, and realized that Obama was the nominee. I'm not surprised that NARAL's board was unanimous.
May 14, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually it was more like healing the rift in the Pro-choice community. Hillary's hit on Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois senate, that were specifically crafted to promote the pro-choice agenda, split the pro-choice
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/75648/support of her. The pro-choice cause should never be twisted then used as a wedge.
Hillary's tactics enraged many. Including a former head of NOW.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
But for some strange reason, Hillary supporters believed that the ends (her presidency) justified the means (trying to destroy a fellow democrat that fought tirelessly for women's issues).
I am overjoyed that NARAL decided to go to the side of what is right and just. Hopefully that will heal the split in the pro-choice community (though is is only alluded to in the statement)
May 14, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
About time.
May 14, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is going to cause aneurisms and shrieking fits of rage over at Salon.com and MyDD. I can't wait for Joan Walsh's editorial excoriating NARAL for being sexist.
May 14, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, I would think, at TaylorMarsh and TalkLeft as well. NARAL is now another Judas, to join an ever-growing list of people and organizations they can rail against and boycott.
May 14, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taylor Marsh's head just exploded.
May 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You exaggerate, but you know its actually going to happen eventually.
May 14, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just headed over to TaylorMarsh.com to check it out. Here's the lede:
I am not joking.
May 14, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny - they are SO predictable, aren't they? ;)
May 14, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh. I feel like I need a shower now after visiting that site.
May 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, eventually you'd think that these groups that support Hillary's dying campaign would realize that there's not point to railing against the inevitable. One by one, the Democratic strongholds will slide over to the Obama camp, and Hillary's supporters will be faced with the ultimate choice - do the same or fall on the sword.
May 14, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Because they've been such shining beacons of rationality so far.
May 14, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, pretty soon Jeralyn Merritt is just going to have to be admitted for observation if this keeps up. She seems pretty much out of it lately. Even posting that putting a woman on the ticket as VP (that isn't Hillary) would be an insult to women. Yeah, she's that deep in the koolaid.
May 14, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here was TalkLeft's response:
May 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? That's word-for-word what the EditTV troll posted below. So, it's a cut-and-paste troll.
Tsk, tsk,...
May 14, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, cut-and-paste atrocities aside, CT Voter (an undeniable Obama supporter) actually made a similar point, so it might not be as much "sour grapes" as it initially sounds.
May 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joan Walsh.
from an earlier thread:
If Lanny Davis is a dick.
Howard Wolfson is a douche bag.
And Terry McAuliffe is an ass-clown.
What do we call Joan Walsh?
May 14, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abortions for some, little American flags for others!!
May 14, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kneel before Zod!!!
May 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always twirling, twirling, TWIRLING toward freedom! :)
May 14, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha. Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
May 14, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say we must move forward, not backward! Upward, not forward!
May 14, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The politics of failure have failed! We have to make them work again!
May 14, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice. :)
May 14, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was brilliant beyond brilliance.
May 14, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lord, we are geeks :) Thanks for kicking us down that road, Mighty Zod :)
May 14, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word is, they've been quietly seeking endorsements of this type even prior to the Scaife sit-down. I hadn't seen an endorsement from these guys toward Clinton yet though, where did you find that one?
If they did, the real question would be what possibly could get them to jump into this thing on behalf of Clinton, since as you've pointed out both candidates have very similar pro-choice positions. Now that they're on record as having endorsed a Clinton, that just might hurt their future fundraising numbers.
May 14, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should have been attached to Greg's post about the NRtL endorsing Clinton, but TPM glitched on me.
May 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot seem to track down the original source where I found the claim, but it is alluded to in this piece on the Huffington Post.
May 14, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
NARAL is not sexist its YOU ALL who are the sexist haters.
Hillary Clinton will be the VP choice on the Obama ticket, and all you haters will have to eat it.
May 14, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are filled with anger, my child. Go to the hills, sit among the flowers, and be at peace.
May 14, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're accusing us of being "sexist haters?"
M'kay.
May 14, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, reward him for getting crushed in WV.
What a load of crap.
May 14, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama got "crushed" in WV by exactly the amount that was predicted. There's no story there other than the continued delusion from HRC that she could actually beat McCain there if she were the nominee.
May 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. He does not have the ability to step up his game and persuade undecided voters to choose him.
Wait until he strikes his claim pose after losing the majority of the primaries leading up to his self-proclaimed victory.
Arrogance and mediocrity embody the Deceiver's campaign.
May 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Fogu2 a gotalife sockpuppet?
May 15, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're rewarding him for winning the nomination. No one cares about West Virginia except Hillary and her supporters. The rest of the country has moved on.
May 14, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just won the "Whiner of the Year" award.
May 14, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
255% behind you Gotalife!
Truly, this is a load of crap flavored cool aid. It makes me so FURIOUS that the hateful obama people are whining their way into the lead - which is so completely unfair.
I think Gotalife would agree with me that democracy is 100% crap!
May 14, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmm...crap-flavored Kool Aid.
Someone needs to photoshop that.
May 14, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS
May 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kneel before Zod!!!
May 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well of course! NARAL always endorses the Democrat in the race. ;-)
May 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good one!
May 14, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If, as Carville said, Hillary has a pair, they just got kicked.
May 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch.
May 14, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget Carville said she had a spare one.
Carville: "Obama has 1.2 million donors. That's not a donor base.. that's a POLITICAL PARTY."
May 14, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shoulder pad feminists dump the frump
May 14, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good timing ... Obama knew that WV would be a bad outcome for weeks ... nice to have a major, "game-changing" endorsement lined up for the next morning!
May 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of rats and sinking ships
May 14, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uhh...second to ONE, Obama. In 2006 when South Dakota was trying to pass an abortion ban and pro-choice organizations looked to the Senate for help, only ONE person came forward to help, and that was Obama, not Hillary.
So Hillary, I'd say you are a close second, but second nonetheless. You won't take risks, you do what is politically easy, you pander. Obama didn't, he stepped up to the plate and did what was right.
May 14, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word! :)
May 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, they also endorsed Joe Lieberman and had a hand in giving us Justice Sam Alito.
May 14, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent way to xerox from TalkLeft!
May 14, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they think that the Democratic primary caused the racial rift, wait until they see the Fall campaign against the GOP. Obama had better practice his long-suffering, head-held-high look, because his Party is going to be doing a lot of dirty work.
From Politico:
"In Mississippiโs 1st Congressional District, where voters went to the polls Tuesday in a make-or-break election for the GOP, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee distributed one flier that linked Republican candidate Greg Davis to the Ku Klux Klan and another that accused the Republicans of trying to 'play politics with religion and race.'"
May 14, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious... did you not notice that TPM did, like, three stories on this yesterday? One is still on the Election Central front page. Why did you think you needed to post in the comments to call attention to this story?
May 14, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-keenan/why-naral-pro-choice-amer_b_101708.html
Here is NARAL's reasoning.
P.S: If not for the periodic special columns, huffpo is a political tabloid.
May 14, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many checkmates can there be in a single game?
May 14, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, but, but...the mailer I got said Obama was pro-life? Why would Hillary lie to me?
May 14, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wolfson: Well, there goes the NARAL endorsement.
Hillary: What about NAMBLA, we can still count on NAMBLA, right?
McAuliffe: Losing means winning! Wheeeee!
May 14, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch when you lose pro-choice feminists....
May 14, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
A truly sad story. Clinton supporters beware--you might not want to see this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051302862.html
May 14, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read this earlier today and I laughed my head off - Dana Milbank sure has a sense of the ridiculous, doesn't he? Any fan of Monty Python is OK in my book!!
May 14, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch! That hurt to read that -- and I'm an Obama supporter. I don't think Clinton wants pity, but that's about the only emotion left after reading that sad, sorry story.
May 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Dana Milbank comes correct. That is absolutely brutal. Thanks for the heads up on that piece...
May 14, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh now that is hillarious!
May 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The timing of this, however, is going to complicate Obama's new efforts to court evangelical voters in KY.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/375071.aspx
May 14, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one's going to mistake either candidate for being pro-life.
May 14, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all. He explains his stance to evangelicals about his views on pro-choice.
I think this speech will win over many faithful Christians. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/ Video Here: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid463869411/bctid416343938May 14, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for posting that!! I was just about to do it!
I'll tell you, it was lonely work there when we could barely get Tim Johnson and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin to speak out against that atrocity. No female senators spoke out against the ban.
P.S. The ban is back on the ballot in SD this year. That will make for an interesting general election.
May 14, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, this was supposed to be in response to LuxVeritas. Damn.
May 14, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ambinder says a "big" endorsement today for BO at 7 pm ET.
Any guesses ? Edwards, or the Big man, Gore himself ?
or per Ambinder, a big Clinton "Judas" ?
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_campaign_touts_big_endor.php
May 14, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Mark Halperin hints at Edwards and even had something up on The Page about Edwards traveling to Grand Rapids today (which is where Obama will be tonite), although now that part of his post has been taken down. Would be pretty sweet to have Edwards' endorsement after Obama's WV loss - just the thing to take the wind right out of the Clinton camp's sails, huh? ;)
May 14, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, on top of the NARAL one, her whole viability meme will be blown way today (if it is Edwards or any other prominent "white")
May 14, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Derails the love fest over the WV primary as well. Still, if it's Edwards, I wouldn't be surprised if his wife endorsed Hillary shortly afterward.
May 14, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the OC has done a brilliant job of scheduling endorsement announcements.
A very gentle push, and a very smart move.
May 14, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it would have been helpful before WV, but I guess I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. At least it's another sign that the party is coming together.
And maybe it was Obama's idea to hold until the day after WV, since he didn't have a chance there anyway. Changes the storyline.
('course, we've heard about Edwards's "imminent" endorsement more than once...)
May 14, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was going to lose WV big, with or without the endorsement. Better to roll it out after the loss in order to blunt the impact. The Obama people are very smart strategists (IMO).
May 14, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
NARAL has multiple personalities.
In 2006, against the wishes of people here in CT, they endorsed Joe Lieberman.
This after Lieberman stated that a hospital's refusal to provide Plan B to a rape victim wasn't that big of a deal, because in CT, "another hospital is only a cab ride away".
Excuse me if I'm not getting all teary-eyed over NARAL right now.
May 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was TalkLeft's response. Coming from you, however, I'll take it as sincere. (And yes, this also means that TalkLeft's response has some validity.)
May 14, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was incredibly frustrating. They weren't standing up for anything except putting their bets on the horse they thought would win.
Same situation here, if you ask me.
And I'm an Obama supporter.
May 14, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think they were fairly blunt that this is what they were doing here. (And yes, I knew you were an Obama supporter which is why I knew your opinion wasn't one of "sour grapes".)
For better or worse, I haven't really followed abortion issues that closely, so my first response when I read that on TalkLeft was less-than-charitable.
May 14, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of Taylor Marsh, a few days ago she was ranting at length in indignation because Sam Stein linked her site to the "Harass the Super Delegates Until they Come Out for Hillary" campaign.
Today, she posts the names, phone numbers and email addresses of NARAL's board and tells her columns to have at 'em. Then, she thinks better of it, pulls the list and just puts up their 1-800 number.
May 14, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her influence is swirling down the drain.
Gotta be frustrating.
May 14, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2008/05/naral-prochoice-6.html#comments
They're swarming the comments thread like crazy over there.
One commenter did note the following:
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2006.
2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2005-2006.
2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.
I understand some female voters might be upset that NARAL wouldn't mechanically back the female candidate but it's obvious he's solidly pro-choice and, besides that, the nominee. You'd think from some of the comments that they had backed McCain or something.
May 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to point that out, middlenames. Thanks for posting it!
May 14, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's being orchestrated from the comments sections of the asylum sites as well.
Oh well, at least its distracting the Hillis44.org bunch from swooning and giggling over their latest slanderous "theory" regarding Obama's sexuality.
May 14, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the ranks begin to close. Goodbye, Senator Clinton.
May 14, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that the horrific, deceptive way that Clinton treated the pro-choice leaders in New Hampshire AND the voters of that State played some role in this decision. I'm sorry, and I know we should concentrate on unification, but honestly she deserves to hurt in some fashion for that cute trick!
May 14, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's Karma time for Clinton.
Her stunt of sending flyers out that questioned Obama's commitment to Choice, was despicable, especially since he had a 100% voting record, according to NOW.
May 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. I almost fell out of my chair when she came up with that "Shame On You" stint in Ohio after the nasty "Obama's soft on choice" mailer she sent out in NH. She has absolutely no shame.
What comes around, goes around. Good for NARAL for reminding us that Hillary is the democratic version of Mitt Rommney.
May 14, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
EMILY, unsurprisingly, goes off the rails again because of the endorsement. And Jennifer Skalka from Hotline Journal has a pretty blunt assessment of such a strategy (entitled, They're Eating their Young):
"Dividing the Dems on the choice issue for the sake of Clinton's doomed candidacy is terribly dangerous. Women voters deserve the truth about Obama's views on choice and his record. Muddying that conversation and sparking an intra-party feud at just the moment the two camps need to unite women, in particular, for the sake of the party come November can only be described as startlingly myopic, a Kamikaze mission."
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/05/and_theyre_eati.html
May 14, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! Exactly. I mean, come on, Hillary's campaign is done, and these people that have been supporting her need to do some soul searching and consider whether they actually care about the issues that she supposedly stands for or not.
May 14, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
EMILY, unsurprisingly, goes off the rails again because of the endorsement. And Jennifer Skalka from Hotline Journal has a pretty blunt assessment of such a strategy (entitled, They're Eating their Young):
"Dividing the Dems on the choice issue for the sake of Clinton's doomed candidacy is terribly dangerous. Women voters deserve the truth about Obama's views on choice and his record. Muddying that conversation and sparking an intra-party feud at just the moment the two camps need to unite women, in particular, for the sake of the party come November can only be described as startlingly myopic, a Kamikaze mission."
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/05/and_theyre_eati.html
May 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Basically, Hillary isn't as pro-choice as she wants the base to believe. I remember back in the early 2000's she was in a news cycle for a bit for being bipartisan and working on a republican bill that further limited women's choices.
May 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only did she send flyers in NH, she got 20 or so local pro-choice leaders to sign their names to a letter/e-mail saying the same totally distorted thing about Obama's voting record on the issue back in Ill. The women signed the letter in good faith, never dreaming that Clinton was lying to them the same way she was to the voters!! There was a good story on it in Washington Post's "Trail" - can't find the site right now, however.
May 14, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be a big get if NARAL hadn't blown their reputation by supporting Leiberman. NARAL is just an opportunist organization these days, holding out to see who will be the winner. They should be marginalized.
May 14, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It probably endorsed Lieberman because they trusted that Lieberman would hold to their stance no matter what, as Lieberman is an orthodox Jew and Judaism classifies the fetus as a limb of the mother (although it does oppose cutting off limbs unnecessarily, so he might agree on principal but not conclusion).
May 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey a lot of dems trusted liebermann. Hell Gore even put him on the ticket for crissakes.
May 14, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
this article a little too terse for me - I ahd to scroll through the comments to discover what the heck NARAL is :) Shouldn't the explanation of an acronym be a basic part of even a short article?
May 14, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Revealing article at Marc Ambinder's Atlantic site:
NARAL PCA Members Outraged At Obama Endorsement
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/naral_pca_members_outraged_at_obama_endorsement.php
Catch his parenthetical comment "(Note: some of the swarm appears to be directed...)" [i.e. from the Hillary is 44 site]
And one of the members may be Carville in drag:
"Mare: "Et tu Brute!""
May 14, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the article that Carol referred to, Dana Milbank said "After an appropriate wait, she steps from the plane and pretends to wave to a crowd of supporters; in fact, she is waving to 10 photographers underneath the airplane's wing. She pretends to spot an old friend in the crowd, points and gives another wave; in fact, she is waving at an aide she had been talking with on the plane minutes earlier."
Was he talking about Tuzla?
May 14, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
eh, what a bunch of dumb bints. They still think Roe is good law. It has been dead for a decade or more, but they and you morons simply don't realize it.
and ironically, dried up old bints who aren't going to get getting any ever again. so why do they even care?
May 15, 2008 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink