Comments on NARAL's Endorsement Causes Shitstorm

I couldn't agree with you more, Erica. It would have been one thing had NARAL decided when they could actually affect the nomination to endorse Barack Obama. It might have still alienated some of their members, but at least you could have called their decision actually relevant or courageous.

But to do it now when they can't affect the nomination, but before it's officially wrapped up seems weird. Especially because NARAL did it without consulting any of it's state orgs, nor did they consult their membership. If you go to their blog, you see post after post of angry people writing that they will never write a check to NARAL again.

Why make such a controversial move that could alienate supporters when they could have endorsed Barack without issue in a month?

A month ago, it would've been a BOLD MOVE (note the caps). A month from now, it would've been a "we're going with the only pro-choice candidate, duh, *yawn*"

Right now... it's "hey, watch what happens to this hornet's nest when I poke it with a stick!"

When we last met NARAL Pro-Choice Washington director Karen Cooper, she was launching distorted attacks against Seattle city council candidate Tim Burgess at the behest of his opponent, David Della. Man, does Karen pick some winners.

They're a pro-choice group endorsing the pro-choice candidate that is going up against the anti-choice candidate. This would only be "tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton" if she were the winner, and we all know that she isn't.

Just because Senator Clinton chooses to remain in the race -which is her prerogative and I support it- it doesn't mean that the rest of the world is beholden to her timetable. The rest of us are focusing on defeating McCain.

Either a NARAL endorsement means something or it doesn't. NARAL (both locally and nationally) have a history of choosing between otherwise compatible candidates; they do it all the time. I've been on the wrong side of a NARAL endorsement, where between 2 candidates who were both rated at 100%, they chose one over the other.

If as this supposed "shitstorm" suggests, NARAL supporters wish the organization to remain neutral, looking only at the overall ratings of candidates, then the endorsement essentially means very little.

But, I suspect NARAL (both locally and nationally) like to think about the larger strategy of the organization. In this instance, my guess is that the Executive Board (or whoever makes the decision Nationally) decided that there was a political advantage to trying to bring this nomination process to a close sooner rather than later, and that the purposes of the pro-choice movement are served by a candidate who can begin to focus and prepare now for the general election.

But, to be "up in arms" about the decision now suggest hypocrisy if you aren't likewise up in arms each and every time that NARAL chooses between two equally-for-choice candidates.

Get over it. If NARAL is to play the game of politics, then they must make decisions. Endorsing now sends the message that it's time to rally around the nominee.

...and don't get me started on the boneheaded practices of Emily's list of the Women's Political Caucus to ONLY endorse women...

This is why I dread the thought of ECB showing up every day in the general election campaign "helping" Obama defeat McCain. Please, please, leave Obama alone when this nomination is decided, Erica. You're not helping anybody but the right wing with your brand of transparently phony propaganda.

What JC @ 4 said.

@4 ""

ERica wrote: NARAL’s Endorsement Causes Shitstorm

When I run this through the b.s-ometer it comes out like this:

NARAL’s Endorsement Causes mild-discomfort, pointless complaining.

It's time to jump on the choice train with Obama and remember that McSame is going to mean not a 5 vote anti-choice majority on the Supreme Court, but a 9 vote anti-choice majority.

Period.

NARAL only hurts itself when it fails to listen to its membership.

I'm sure the Obama camp promised them something in exchange for an endorsement now.

Obama's camp is now dedicated to making the case it can keep Clinton's supporters without including her in their run. See Edwards' endorsement for another example of the same.

I predict a strong endorsement from a powerful labor group before the end of next week.

@5, the NARAL endorsement doesn't mean anything in terms of the election. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that NARAL's supporters won't feel upset or alienated by NARAL's decision.

Just as NARAL has every right to endorse when they want, so too do NARAL's supporters have every right to stop donating to NARAL.

My problem with the NARAL decision is that it seemed designed to create controversy. By making an endorsement without getting input from supporters or without getting input from regional NARAL divisions, NARAL created the kind of heavy-handed top-down strategy that Obama himself is seeking to avoid.

Erica makes a good point when she says that it's a risky and needless move. NARAL could have made their endorsement next month and NOT have alienated a good portion of their supporters. Instead, they chose, in my opinion ill-advisedly to make their endorsement now.

Because of that, NARAL may lose support at a time when reproductive rights are very insecure.

NARAL central made the decision that this endorsement would help elect a democrat in the general. Just like Edwards. Of course it's designed to minimize Clinton's W Virginia victory. That's INTENTIONAL folks.

Sure this pisses people off. Among the people it pisses off are the women who won't be voting for Obama in the general election. They of course should shut the fuck up about reproductive rights.

Waiting longer to endorse would have hurt worse. Clinton is finished and needs to go; she is the only one who can't see that, and by raising a stink over this perfectly appropriate endorsement the regional NARALs are driving themselves further into irrelevancy. Get stuffed, Karen Cooper. WE are supposed to be the reality-based community. Wake up.

Go check out NARAL's blog. There's so much deluded prattling on there that you'll think, well, I don't know what you'll think.

There are loonies saying they're going to write in HRC in the fall. So is this about keeping abortion legal or is it about supporting the woman candidate? Hmmm. . . .

"Why not let the nomination process play out and, assuming Obama becomes the official nominee, endorse him then?"

The nomination process *is* played out. Anyone pissed by this endorsement is simply in denial.

The following comment is in response to a post "About that NARAL endorsement" that was removed for whatever reason:

I agree with the local NARAL chapter. Endorsing Obama at this early stage in the race is an unconscionable slap in the face of Hillary Clinton.

And if it's unconscionable now, then caucusing for Barack Obama at an even earlier stage in the race (three months ago) is an even more unconscionable slap in the face. In fact, it's more like a punch in the gut. I mean, the only thing more unconscionable is Obama's decision to run against Hillary at that really early stage in the race however many years ago that was now.

Also, I'll have you all know that slapping Hillary in the face (or punching her in the gut) constitutes violence against women. While it may be just a proverbial slap in the face, it's a short, slippery slope from talking about violence against women to actually committing violence against women.

Yet another example of the lingering, vicious sexism that Hillary Clinton's courageous run for the presidency has unearthed in this land of ours. Obama should just be thankful he doesn't have to face racism on this level.

ECB: Hillary is toast, get over it. I don't buy that article you wrote last week; you reek of dishonesty.

I don't give a whit about the NARAL endorsement, but I hope that Obama promised them something big, but it just seems stupid on NARAL's part to alienate a portion of their base. Of course the race is over, and of course Obama will be the winner. But, there are still NARAL supporters who are pro-Clinton who don't see it that way and will be pissed that NARAL endorsed.

obama is going to be the nominee and people need to get used to it. this is NARAL's attempt at slapping some sense into the die-hard hillary supporters.

if people are going to be writing in HRC's name in the fall, well then ladies, you know that abortion you always wanted? you better get it now, because once you've put mccain into office, you can say bye-bye to your right to choose.

Also... this isn't exactly like a politician alienating their base. Anyone who hates NARAL now can support another organization. How will that hurt women? Is it really that important to have one monolithic pro-choice org? Give to planned parenthood, NOW, etc, the world will go on.

You're high if you think an endorsement now means nothing in the race.

I know most of you can't stand Clinton. She has, however, been a politician much longer than you've been a commenter on SLOG.

She knows much more than you do where she stands in this primary. You may think she's evil or uppity or out-of-her-place-in-the-kitchen (or whatever motivates your hatred of her), but she's far from delusional.

She's trying to secure for herself her best outcome of this primary. NARAL's endorsement at this moment weakens her position.

If you can't see why Clinton's supporters are mad at NARAL for hurting their candidate, especially now that she's taking steps to re-unite the party, you're either blinded by partisanship or hatred.

@8 ""

This is a slap in Hillary's face insofar as everyone is supposedly obligated to coddle her and her supporters. She's finished. Holding off an endorsement is a courtesy at best. Anyone who thinks otherwise is as deluded as Hillary seems to be.

This is all about supporting a woman candidate. And you know what? There’s nothing wrong with that. Why shouldn’t NARAL groups support the woman candidate? Lord knows they’ve waited long enough. The spin is no worse than the crap you hear from every lobby group.

Why not just say they’re supporting the woman candidate until a candidate makes it to 2,025? One reason is that HRC insists the number is 2,208 (Florida + Michigan).

It will be interesting to see what local NARAL groups do when Obama hits 2,025. If they don’t endorse Obama then, it will raise questions.

Clearly NARAL had a choice to make between political pragmatism and kissing the boo-boos of Hillary supporters for a little while longer, and they made it.

But clearly it's NOT really over yet: Hillary is still out there stirring up resentment against the D's nominee. NARAL is saying, we have a pro-choice nominee, and we will be among the first to endorse him for president. If Clinton or her supporters (who ARE these people??) are offended, they have put themselves in the position to BE offended with their delusionary behavior. That's called 'stirring up drama' and it should stop ASAP.

I would argue that NARAL did wait until the nomination process played out. It's over, which is the same reason John Edwards and (finally) Jim McDermott went public with their O endorsements this week.

As baseball announcers sometimes like to say, "the fans are heading for the exits."

most of this indignation comes from white woman who by and large come across as out of step with their brown 'sisters'...all this about the women's candidate is bs. hrc is the white establishment womens candidate.

"Why not let the nomination process play out and, assuming Obama becomes the official nominee, endorse him then?"

Because Obama's a lock, it's not too early to start kissing his ass. NARAL's not exactly the first to think of this clever strategy.

With reproductive rights one foot in the grave, NARAL better quickly decide whether they'd prefer ideological purity, or winning.

Obama is 100% ideologically pure, NapoleonXIV. Absolutely pure. This isn't even about some fine point of doctrine. This is about nothing except Hillary's ego.

Oh, I know, but if I suggested that they had been overly sentimental, stubborn and unyielding, I'd be named a Misogynist of Slog.

Clearly the presence of a vulva is all that matters.

What's the deal with somebody named "Stranger Hunter?". With Stranger boxes on every corner, who has to hunt?

Doh!

What's the deal with somebody named "Stranger Hunter?". With Stranger boxes on every corner, who has to hunt?

Doh!

How was this endorsement "preemptive"? Obama's got it locked up. Time to unite around him, fools. Oh. No disrespect Hillary. But it's time to call it quits. OK?

Why do some say "reproductive rights" when they really mean "abortion rights." Nobody's stepping on people’s rights to reproduce, it’s the rights to abortion is the issue. Of course, I ask this question rhetorically. The term ‘reproductive rights’ is a euphemism for the termination of the life of an unborn child which has nothing to do with reproduction, because the child already exists.

@38 -- Have you been around for the last, what, 40 years?

The anti-reproductive-rights crowd has no intention of stopping at abortion. The are also against birth control pills, condoms, and pre-marital sex.

They are stepping on people's rights to control how and when they reproduce.

it's a euphemism, you fucking idiot.

I'm fairly certain that children existing is central to reproduction.

@38,

As I've explained before, and clearly you're too stupid to get it, reproductive rights refer to the right to reproduce when the individual sees fit. So, yes, killing a precious unborn baybee fits into reproductive rights. Pregnant women have a right to choose not to reproduce at that time or at all and to have access to safe abortion.

The crazy wing of the pro-choice movement thinks people should be united? Here's a thought: be united in supporting the pro-choice candidate who's won the nomination.

Seriously, we're supposed to care that the people backing someone who isn't the nominee are upset that other people are supporting the one who is?

I am sick to fucking death of the bitter, bitter Hillary supporters and their pathetic attacks on the Democratic nominee and his supporters.

If anyone so much as points out the fact that there is no clear path to nomination for Hillary at this point they are labeled a misogynist by the likes of ECB. It's ridiculous, if the situations were reversed, I'd think it was past time for Obama to bow out and stop wasting money that could be spent on down-ticket campaigns that have a chance of winning. Why should Hillary be subjec to special treatment? Because she's a woman? Hardly a feminist viewpoint.

Except, he's not the nominee yet. Clearly, there's a 99.9% chance that he will be, but nonetheless it hasn't happened yet. The point is, if they had just waited 3 weeks until the i's were dotted/t's were crossed, there wouldn't have been any issue. Everyone would have been happy with NARAL and the pro-choice candidate they endorsed (except maybe raindrop).

@44 - The situations would not have been reversed, because if Obama was where Clinton was in mid-to-late February, he'd have been written off as a joke at that point and his funding would have completely dried up. (And I don't believe he would have millions to loan to his own campaign, either.)

Does ECB have OCD? Isn't there medication for that? Just curious.

All sassiness aside, the thing I don't get about this supposed "shit-storm" is that NARAL are a bunch of spineless hacks, so I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. Have you seen who else NARAL has endorsed over the years? Al Wynn, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins & Joe fucking Lieberman, for Christ's sake. I VERY MUCH support a woman's righ to choose, but that list is just an embarassment. That's the kind of leadership NARAL looks to? I can't imagine why anyone would give a shit what NARAL thinks about anything. If there is indeed a shit-storm brewing in the women's reproductive rights community, it should be about trying to cobble together a political organization that's worth a damn.

Three weeks? The convention, where all the i's are dotted and t's crossed, isn't until August. And what if Clinton decides to contest the nomination in the convention (there has been talk of such from her campaign and supporters)? What about seating the delegates from FL and MI where Clinton ran uncontested?

Given the number of times the Clinton campaign has moved the goalposts in this primary, I don't see how anyone, who has been paying attention, could believe that this is all just gonna end in another 3 weeks..........unless, groups like NARAL move to endorse Obama, making it perfectly clear that yes, it is over. Which is EXACTLY why this endorsement, at this time is the right thing to do!

Julie, are you just trying to prove that women are bad at math? or are you one of those special christian folks who doesnt believe in abstract and untested concepts like math and statistics and calculus?

Florida doesn't matter, Michigan doesn't matter. She's OVER. The regional NARALs just look foolish.

It means that NARAL wants to have some cover when their lobbyists come a-calling. It's politics, which as we all know, isn't bean bag.

@20 is the most insightful, but @34 wins.

Why does anyone listen to NARAL anyway? I'm an Obama supporter, but a NARAL endorsement does little to impress me.

They endorsed Joe Lieberman - and quite a few other Republicans. They're idiots.

Those of us who support choice should look to other groups that actually will support a woman's right to choose as opposed to supporting an organisation that just seems to exist for its leaders to suck up to those it perceives to be powerful.