So NARAL endorsed Obama, in a move that was sure to create what you laypeople call “controversy”. The bloodletting at their blog comments is disturbing. You’d think they endorsed, oh, McCain or someone anti-choice, when they instead endorsed a pro-choice candidate they’ve had a long and fruitful relationship with.
It’s not a crazy choice, or even necessarily a badly timed one. NARAL has long thought of itself as a strategic organization, and I suspect that they think that Obama’s the better bet for beating McCain in November. And beating McCain is more important from a pro-choice perspective than the choice between Obama and Clinton, who have pretty much identical views on reproductive rights. Or maybe they think that an endorsement released now will help hurry up an end to the primary season, so the party can focus its energies on fighting McCain, who has pretty much promised to spike the Supreme Court with justices hostile to women’s rights.
In fact, they said as much in their press release.
NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC is making our endorsement now because every day that passes, Sen. McCain gets a free ride on the issue of choice. That free ride ends today.
It’s about moving onto the next stage, the most important stage: Getting a pro-choice Democrat into the White House.
There’s a scent of sour grapes in the air around the Clinton campaign, and from a feminist perspective, I’m boggled. Sure, I understand that it’s disappointing if “electing a female President” was a major priority for you and that’s getting thwarted. But if you support women’s rights, you need to put your support behind the Democratic nominee, even if it’s Obama and it’s likely to be. McCain can’t even support equal pay for women! He’s going to continue the assault on reproductive rights that the Bush administration started. If you support women, have some pity on us in our fertile years living in red states who sorely need a political break in our direction right now, namely a pro-choice Democrat in the White House. Which Obama is, in case there’s a whiff of doubt created by this needlessly contentious primary season.
58 Responses to “Can this please be over soon? I’m running out of aspirin”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
At last! Irrevocable proof that Amanda Marcotte is anti-woman.
Meanwhile, in Argentina … (or why we need pro-choice and pro-reproductive education policies everywhere!!!
slightly related: Edwards apparently just endorsed Obama as well.
A good strategy to help me survive the primaries is every time you hear the words “Hillary” or “Obama” just replace it with the words “A pillaging band of Vikings”
1) It’s “irrefutable,” not “irrevocable.”
2) Um, she’s anti-woman because she doesn’t like Clinton? Does that make you anti-black because you don’t like Obama?
No dan, she’s an Auntie Woman. Just not a Spinster Auntie Woman like Twisty.
I assumed dan was being sarcastic - am I too charitable?
“A good strategy to help me survive the primaries is every time you hear the words “Hillary” or “Obama” just replace it with the words “A pillaging band of Vikings””
…and a good strategy for me is to replace “McCain” with “Bush’s adopted older brother”.
I already have to replace every mention of “Dick Cheney” with “Darth Sidious” and “George W. Bush” with “Escapee from a mental hospital who thinks he’s Napoleon”…
Not just NARAL - Edwards has just declared for him too!
“I assumed dan was being sarcastic - am I too charitable?”
Good question, but it reminds me that there seems to be a large number of wingnuts who are obsessed with Amanda. Which must be really scary for her to have to cope with…
You know, Amanda, there are better methods of birth control than holding an asprin between your knees … but I understand why you might be running low - they do wear out after a while.
I was certain it was sarcasm. But I don’t know dan from Eve, so maybe Kate and Jeffrey know something we don’t.
Seriously, if this doesn’t end soon… well, let’s just say there’ve been a lot of empty liquor bottles in the recycling bin lately.
In case anyone wants a news report on Edwards - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7401899.stm
Right this very instant (3:45pm PDT) John Edwards is on CNN with Obama at his side. Right now he’s saying nice things about Clinton. I’ve only just tuned in so I don’t know what he’s already said, but it does look like he’s coming out for Obama. Hmm. An Obama/Edwards ticket could be fun to watch.
MKK
I already have to replace every mention of “Dick Cheney” with “Darth Sidious” and “George W. Bush” with “Escapee from a mental hospital who thinks he’s Napoleon”…
Someone who thought he was Napoleon might be halfway competent. Your problem is that your President thinks he’s Mussolini.
Okay, it’s official. He just endorsed Obama.
MKK
Wasn’t it Mussolini that, “made the trains run on time“?
I considered using sarcasm tags but I hate those things so I threw in an exclamation mark and hoped that would cover it.
) It’s “irrefutable,” not “irrevocable.”
That was part of the joke, and nothing you do can make me admit otherwise.
man,
just say Edward is the veep already. Obama need that Kentucky vote to close the deal faster. This is getting way to close, specially if Hillary is pushing “nightmare scenario” with floor fight.
Poetic justice for HRC, for misrepresenting Obama’s pro choice record in her New Hampshire mailer. The head of Illinois Planned Parenthood asked him to vote present, and he did so.
Wasn’t it Mussolini that, “made the trains run on time“?
He claimed it, but it was not so.
I can see him turning to the head of the Italian Railway Commission and saying “Brownieo, you’re doing a heck of a job”…
Benito just claimed credit for the previous improvements made.
He had other grand public works accomplishments - which is something Lil’ Boots is still groping for in his own reign.
The concern, I suspect, is that by endorsing Obama they are implicitly saying he is a superior advocate for women’s rights than Clinton.
Hillary is the better candidate from a health care perspective among other things.
None of you read Paul Krugman though.
And having a woman president WOULD help women. End of story. And unless Hillary has bowed out just stuff your fucking whining. It’s a democracy. Get used to it.
I seriously doubt women in Iran are thinking highly of Hillary Clinton and her women policy.
Hillary is the better candidate from a health care perspective
Because nothing succeeds like failure? You may have a point: I’m sure the captain of the Exxon Valdez is a lot more careful driver now. But forcing everyone to buy health insurance doesn’t show that she’s learned to consider others’ points of view and adapt her plan accordingly.
And having a woman president WOULD help women.
Would it help women by showing women can handle the biggest job in the country, or by instituting more women-friendly policies? I ask because that’s what people thought when Hewlett-Packard picked Carly Fiorina to be its CEO. She promptly instituted the first layoffs in HP history, and arranged a huge merger resulting in thousands more being laid off, before she herself was fired. Along the way she was sued for investor fraud for promising Deutsche Bank business for voting the shares under their control in favor of the merger.
Thus Fiorina’s CEOship set back women two ways: Fiorina was not a shining example of female leadership. Further, HP was a lot more family-friendly during its first half-century under male leadership. After a couple years of unemployment, Fiorina is now chief fundraiser for McCain.
And having a woman president WOULD help women. End of story.
Thatcher.
Now Carly Fiorina is one of McCain’s major surrogates. It’s the commitment to excellence we’ve come to expect from the GOP during these past 8 years.
set back women two ways: Fiorina was not a shining example of female leadership.
So nice to have this right out there so we can all see where we stand.
Now talk to me about something that sets men back. Tell me about shining examples of male leadership. Tell me how Bush and McCain and Ken Lay and Hitler make you ashamed of your penis. And, Hector? Make me believe it.
Would the NAACP endorsing Clinton be an appropriate comparison? If the positions were switched and Clinton was leading, and then the NAACP endorsed her, don’t you think there might be an outcry? Obviously Clinton would be better for minorities than McCain… I really do wish Clinton would drop out, not because I’m an Obama supporter, but just because the longer she stays in, the worse she looks. The gas tax holiday was a shame, and even though I was supporting her, it’s impossible to imagine that she actually would have a chance of getting the nomination without tearing the democratic party apart. I was an Edwards supporter, so his endorsement of Obama does ease my mind. I can understand people being upset that NARAL endorsed Obama, but if you could support them after endorsing Joe Lieberman, this sure as hell shouldn’t be the last straw.
My guess is that NARAL just wanted this to be over. The longer it goes, the better it is for McCain.
Hillary is the better candidate from a health care perspective among other things.
None of you read Paul Krugman though.
I do. Krugman’s right about mandates. Hillary Clinton’s inadequate healthcare plan is marginally better than Barack Obama’s inadequate healthcare plan.
The one Democratic candidate who got healthcare right was Dennis Kucinich. And John Edwards came a lot closer than either Obama or Clinton.
Neither Clinton nor Obama’s plan will come close to solving our healthcare access crisis. And Clinton, whose running on experience, also managed to put healthcare reform back twenty years through her part in leading the Bill Clinton healthcare disaster in 1993-94.
And having a woman president WOULD help women. End of story.
Like Phoenician said, Thatcher.
And unless Hillary has bowed out just stuff your fucking whining. It’s a democracy. Get used to it.
The whining over NARAL is coming from the Hillary Clinton camp.
As for Clinton not bowing out….neither has Ron Paul or even Mitt Romney (who’s just suspended his campaign). At this point all three have approximately the same shot at winning the White House this year.
To the extent that Obama supporters whine about Clinton, it’s over the kind of campaign she’s running–especially considering her odds of victory–not her insistence on staying in the race and wasting her supporters’ money, which is indeed her democratic right.
This is mind blowing. Its organizational stupidity. It has and will loose NARAL State board members. And supporters such as myself who over the years have hosted house parties and fund raisers and turned out when called to do so. I am sorry to say it but I am not supporting NARAL with my money or time anymore.
I am now going shopping for a pro-choice replacement for my time and money. One that has the good sense NOT to indulge in organizational suicide prior to very important State elections and legislative sessions.
Ask yourselves if NARAL is going to get through the door of the many legislators around the country who support Hillary in this primary period? I imagine they will still vote pro-choice but they are not going to be taking NARAL’s calls anytime soon and that makes NARAL pretty damn ineffectual. Nor is this going to help with fence sitting Reps. who will see that NARAL will endorse on the bench but “present” voting candidates over the champions who pick up the ball for the full court press. Here comes a period of back sliding politics on choice and other womens issues because why take the heat when the deciding criteria is popularity?
I don’t care if you vote Obama or Clinton but NARAL is a singe issue organization and they just blew off their credibility with their base by supporting the ok but not terribly courageous record instead of the stellar record on their single issue. My time and money is for organizations that stay true to their mission. Be that open space preservation, water and air quality, peace, social justice, clean energy or whatever.
Most of the angry with the timing and failing to follow the NARAL organizational vision people such as myself are the activist/members that have supported NARAL for many many years. Contrast that to those that feel that NARAL made the right choice in endorsing now rather then seeing the normal nominating process play out. Most of the “Thank you NARAL” commentors are not members, have never protested anti-choice groups, escorted women to family planning clinics under attack by the right wing wack-jobs, testified at State legislative hearings against anti-choice bills, written letters to the editors or contributed financial. Nor are they likely to.
Yup. It’s the type of campaign that Clinton is running, not that she’s still running. If she was busy making the case that she’s better for taking on McCain, by training her guns on him and going out full-bore, that would be great. But nope.
She’s proving her quality by attacking those on the same side.
If she had this type of lead, the pressure on Obama to drop out months ago would have pushed him out, to be honest. But that’s a different circumstance I think. It’s not comparable.
I’m a single-payer or socioeconomic death guy, and to be honest, for right now I take Obama’s side on things. I think that when all is said and done, anything will be watered down substantially. And a mandate without a strong public option, I think would be a disaster, as it would see prices skyrocket. (even more than they are now). And if you HAD a strong public option, you don’t really need the mandate. It’s a reverse Catch-22. There’s no reason to take the political hit.
I understand what the pro-mandate folks are saying, but frankly, I think it’s a bit naive. What they’re saying is that there’s a lot of relatively healthy people who don’t have insurance, and because of that drive up costs. But I think that in terms of the insurance/public facing, that money will just go to additional profits and do nothing to lower prices. Prices are set by what the public is willing to pay. And in the case of a mandate, there’s no option to walk away from the table. It could be ugly, if you ask me.
Nancy -
1. Hillary Clinton destroyed any chance of meaningful healthcare reform in this country through her dreadful lack of leadership in the early 1990’s. I work in a mental health clinic and I see the results every single day. So no, she is NOT better on healthcare on Obama, and she does NOT have a better record on this issue.
2. A women in charge does not necessarily mean diddly squat to women’s issues. Margaret Thatcher is the most glaring example, but Mary Robinson (former president of Ireland) didn’t do a thing to overturn that country’s terrifying abortion laws, and I haven’t noticed the female president of Liberia speaking out against rape as an instrument of war in the rest of Africa. Also, please tell me what good having Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State has done women, or Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.
Gender doesn’t matter. Effective leadership does. And so far I haven’t seen much from Sen. Clinton on women’s issues.
3. If Barack Obama were a white man, Hillary Clinton would have dropped out months ago. Since he isn’t and she hasn’t, please note that Obama is leading in popular vote, states won (including lily white places like Utah), and delegates pledged and unpledged. THAT is democracy, and it’s all saying that Obama is going to win the nomination unless Clinton pulls something very, very dirty at the convention.
4. Pointing out the truth isn’t whining. Continuing to insist that a candidate has a chance to win despite being mathematically eliminated IS. So kindly stop.
I have to call bullshit. Using the excuse that McCain is currently getting a free pass on choice issues because the Democrats haven’t picked a nominee is purest bullshit. There is not one goddamn thing stopping NARAL from pounding on John McCain’s record without ever having to mention either of the Democratic candidates.
Then again, what can you expect from an organization that already lost all credibility when they endorsed Lieberman over Lamont. *rollls eyes*
The Democratic race is over. Hillary Clinton has every right not to suspend her campaign. But everyone else should feel free to move on and take sides in the choice between Obama, McCain, and a variety of minor party candidates that the voters will actually face in November.
I agree with DarthVelma that NARAL has made some bad endorsement choices in the past (Lieberman over Lamont being a great example).
However, given that Hillary Clinton will not be a candidate in November and given that she and Obama have nearly identical records on reproductive freedom, I think that NARAL’s decision makes plenty of sense from the organization’s perspective.
The only downside to their decision is the entirely predictable shitfit that many Clinton supporters are having about it. I certainly hope that NARAL took that into account when they made their decision. My guess is that, once we get into the general election campaign, the frustration of Clinton supporters at NARAL’s move will dissipate along with all their threats not to vote for Obama in November.
Clinton and Obama remain two very, very similar candidates, on choice and most other issues. The biggest difference between them at this point is that one has lost and the other has won.
DarthVelma, don’t you find the Lieberman a good example of a specific-interest group not seeing the bigger picture?
As I understand it, NARAL endorsed Lieberman because of his pro-choice voting record. Fine, and in that one cannot argue with backing the horse that brung ya. But at the time of the endorsement Lieberman was swinging wildly to the right on most other matters (and has continued to do so since). Worse, he was actively supporting the GOP, an anti-choice party, and damaging the Dems, a pro-choice party.
IMLTHO it behooves an interest group to look not just at the candidate’s record on their one key issue, but whether or not his or her entire conduct is more likely to advance the party that is advancing the cause. After all, what benefit does NARAL gain with a pro-choice Connecticut senator and firm friend who is helping to maintain an entrenched GOP government which is actively anti-choice?
Would the NAACP endorsing Clinton be an appropriate comparison?
No. Because NARAL is not a garden-variety women’s rights organization, it’s an organization devoted to reproductive rights. As far as I know, you don’t win NARAL brownie points simply for having more fallopian tubes than the other candidate.
If NOW or the FMF had endorsed Obama and explicitly said he would be better for women’s rights (especially if they did so without pointing to any particular difference in their platforms), it would be different. Though I wouldn’t put it past them since neither of those groups have that great a track record these days.
I understand the confusion — I mean, in a lot of ways this particular wing of the women’s movement has turned itself into a one-issue movement surrounding a knee-jerk understanding of reproductive justice. But no, at this point NARAL != NOW, kthxbai.
Personally, I think NARAL should have waited to endorse anyone until Hillary was out of it.
Unless someone gets 2,206 (or 2,210 if the rules committee allows Florida and Michigan back in the mix) delegates, this race is NOT over. Even with the possible 26 delegates Obama could get from Edwards, he can’t win this on pledged delegates alone. He’ll need at least 75 more superdelegates to win before June 4.
Oops, that first number should be 2,026.
Now talk to me about something that sets men back. Tell me about shining examples of male leadership.
I agree that the bar for white male Presidential candidates is very low — low enough to be stepped over by a legacy C student who was rejected by UT law school and failed at almost everything he ever tried in life. However, because white males have been the only candidates we’ve ever had, people will continue to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Not so for women. So far the bar has been infinitely high. That’s why I think the first woman President would have to be much more capable than W. in order to pave the way for other women. Like the old saying goes: ‘For a woman to be successful, she has to be twice as smart and work twice as hard as a man - fortunately, that’s not very difficult.’
This is mind blowing. Its organizational stupidity. It has and will loose NARAL State board members. And supporters such as myself who over the years have hosted house parties and fund raisers and turned out when called to do so. I am sorry to say it but I am not supporting NARAL with my money or time anymore.
It’s that attitude that boggles my mind. How can any feminist sincerely think that punishing people for not supporting Clinton is more important than the reproductive rights of the women of this country is amazing to me. I have been conservative about being upset with women who feel that the first female President issue is a trump card, but that’s beyond me. Feminists care about ALL women, not just candidates. Abortion rights are non-negotiable as a feminist platform item for me.
And I don’t think it’s that bad a move for support reasons. NARAL has been trying to shake off the image of being an older women’s organization for forever, which is especially critical because most people who need the right they support are younger. Obama has that youthful appeal, and hitching your wagon to his train is not the worst idea.
Yes, it will be able to work with those legislators. Unless you know something about the Clintons’ penchant for revenge that I don’t.
No, NARAL won’t be ineffectual. Besides, I don’t know if you noticed, but more Democratic stalwarts, in the form of superdelegates, support Obama. If legislators’ support is contingent on an organization supporting their preference for the presidency, NARAL still wins by supporting Obama. Of course, this is a moot point, because no legislator is going to refuse to meet with NARAL out of spite.
Obama voted present at the behest of pro-choice organizations.
You are a liar.
Go ahead and take your ball and go home. The rest of us won’t mind one bit.
I’ve said this a couple other places and I’ll say it here:
This isn’t a decision by NARAL to support the male candidate over the female candidate. This is a decision by NARAL to support the DNC candidate over the DLC candidate. They listened to the DLC in 2006 and supported Lieberman over Lamont, and they got fucked over.
When you have two candidates with a 100% rating on reproductive rights, you have to start looking at whose strategy do you think is better for the November election. I think the 50-state strategy is a proven winner (proven by 2006) and the old DLC 50%+1 is a loser. Apparently, NARAL has made the same calculation.
What Mnemosyne said.
I think that the most promising thing for the Dean / Obama model is that it promises to take back the country and state offices for the Dems, offices which have been so crucial forthe GOP in voter fraud, voter suppression and outright election theft. (Paging Gov. Siegelman, your parole officer wants to shut you up!)
county, not country.
dingdingding.
Let’s not forget, either, that the 50 state strategy also goes hand in hand with the realities of the reproductive justice movement. Selling “red” states down the river in order to possibly have a chance to control certain aspects of the federal landscape is part of why abortion is de facto illegal in states like South Dakota and Oklahoma.
The new DNC strategy seems to be focusing on organizing people at the state and local level — since a majority of Americans are pro-choice, it stands to reason that engaging democrats at the grassroots level will help win back state legislative seats that are currently held by people who are conspiring to take away reproductive rights one little brick at a time.
amanda, thank you for this post. i too have been gobsmacked reading teh interwebs the last couple of days. especially the “i’ll show obama! i’ll write in clinton’s name in November”. like it isn’t going to hurt us women more than it will hurt barack obama personally to have mccain in the white house.
This isn’t a decision by NARAL to support the male candidate over the female candidate. This is a decision by NARAL to support the DNC candidate over the DLC candidate. They listened to the DLC in 2006 and supported Lieberman over Lamont, and they got fucked over.
Actually, it’s neither of these things.
It’s a decision by NARAL to support the pro-choice Democratic nominee-to-be over the anti-choice Republican nominee-to-be.
This was not an intervention in the primary race at all. The primary race is, for all intents and purposes, over. NARAL’s endorsement is more than anything else a recognition of that. It is part of the beginning of the general election campaign.
You know that. I know that. But given that there are still people insisting in the other thread that Hillary can still win if the Florida and Michigan delegates are seated, and given that Hillary has not conceded, the race is not in fact over. So for NARAL to come out with this endorsement right now is an attempt to force Hillary’s hand and it is picking sides in the Democratic primary.
It’s not over. I wouldn’t pass Hillary to pull some major shenanigans.
my take: online, Hillary is only hold together by very few blog.
These are paid for blogs, with decreasing level of hardness to post.
the leftalk
myDD
the confluence (it is possible to post, but with complicated method)
Hillary and crews are cheating in Oregon. (using extra money outside the law)
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Big Pro-Hillary Independent Group Will Spend Up To $500,000 On Ad In Oregon
The American Leadership Project — the big pro-Hillary 527 put together by major Hillary-backing unions and major donors — is buying $300,000-$500,000 worth of TV time in Oregon for a new ad touting Hillary’s record on the economy, I’m told.
Tellingly, the spot — unlike past ALP-sponsored ads, which attacked Obama — will be uniformly positive, with no mention at all of Obama or even any implicit contrast between his and Hillary’s economic record. The ad will begin running today.
ALP’s decision to go positive at this late date is significant. It suggests that ALP — one of the top independent groups backing Hillary — may recognize that the contest is all but decided and that there’s no percentage in attacking Obama, something that could damage him in advance of the general election.
The problem, as I see it, is that NARAL didn’t endorse Clinton ages ago when they should have. There is no comparing her record on choice and Obama’s.
There is no comparing her record on choice and Obama’s.
Probably true. Obama’s had a 100% prochoice voting record since 1997. When did Hillary first get elected, 2000?
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=2&go.x=14&go.y=20
These splits are terrible.
When John Kerry endorsed Obama, the nastiness on his blog was incredible. Some Hillary people were so angry - did they not remember his “botched joke” incident and how Hillary joined the Republican chorus in demanding that Kerry apologize? I can’t imagine what they really expected as far as an endorsement.
I gather that many Hillary supporters no longer have much use for Keith Olbermann (I saw one video that showed him speaking and there was a graphic that said, “Actor pretending to be Edward R. Murrow.”). It’s such a shame. For so long, he was the only media figure speaking truth to power. He has said he loves and admires the Clintons, but has been unhappy with the Clinton campaign’s tactics.
I hate to see the left split like this. People and groups will endorse - but we remain on the same side, right??
Aspirin? I’m going for a Xanax!
These splits are terrible.
When John Kerry endorsed Obama, the nastiness on his blog was incredible. Some Hillary people were so angry - did they not remember his “botched joke” incident and how Hillary joined the Republican chorus in demanding that Kerry apologize? I can’t imagine what they really expected as far as an endorsement.
I gather that many Hillary supporters no longer have much use for Keith Olbermann (I saw one video that showed him speaking and there was a graphic that said, “Actor pretending to be Edward R. Murrow.”). It’s such a shame. For so long, he was the only media figure speaking truth to power. He has said he loves and admires the Clintons, but has been unhappy with the Clinton campaign’s tactics.
I hate to see the left split like this. People and groups will endorse - but we remain on the same side, right??
Aspirin? I’m going for a Xanax!