Pro-Choice Women's Group Says NARAL is Wrong

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:38:56 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Press Release from the National Women’s Political Caucus: (received by e-mail)

The National Women’s Political Caucus is disappointed to learn of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s endorsement of Senator Obama today. The Caucus knows Hillary Clinton to be a clear leader and a consistent champion of the issues that NARAL and NWPC have in common. We believe that this announcement at this time will divide the choice community at a time when we need to stand united.

As a lawyer, advocate, First Lady, and Senator, Hillary Clinton has stepped up and stood out on matters important to women. When it comes to each woman's ability to make the most personal of life decisions, Hillary has been a consistent and reliable advocate for a woman's right to choose. In fact, she has received numerous awards from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

More...

Senator Clinton condemned the Supreme Court's April 2007 decision to allow the government to dictate to women what they can and cannot do about their own health.

She has championed the Prevention First Act, which expands access to family planning services for low income women.

She is an original co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, federal legislation that would guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women.

In partnership with Senator Murray, Senator Clinton waged a successful battle to get the Food and Drug Administration to make Plan B (the "morning after" pill) available over the counter. This was one of the biggest accomplishments of the pro-choice advocacy community in years.

Senator Clinton made it very clear when she stood on the Senate floor to voice her opposition to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito that one of her major concerns was to keep intact Roe v. Wade. While Senator Obama was also opposed to the nomination of Roberts and Alito, he never mentioned the preservation of Roe v. Wade.

NWPC members in 30 chapters throughout the country join me to say that we are disappointed to learn of NARAL’s endorsement of Senator Obama, and that we stand firm in our support and commitment to the candidacy of Senator Hillary Clinton for President.

< John Edwards and Obama Endorsement: Thread Two | John Edwards Endorsement: Thread Three >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pro-Choice Women's Group Says NARAL is Wrong | 65 comments (65 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I will never (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by dissenter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:42:24 PM EST

Give NARAL another dime

: Heh (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:56:15 PM EST

I don't know a thing about NWPC, but if they're angling to claim a spot in the hierarchy formerly occupied by NARAL, they're being pretty sharp here.

: I already made the same commitment (4.00 / 1) (#29)
by Iphie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:29:14 PM EST

when they supported Senator "Short-Ride" Lieberman over the much stronger pro-choice (and actual Democrat) Ned Lamont. That coupled with their complete and total lack of spine during the Alito and Roberts confirmation battle sealed the deal for me. I still get email from them, and for a while there I had a back and forth going with a staffer who tried to convince me of the correctness of their behavior. Their answers were never satisfactory, and they just avoided justifying their support of Short-Ride.
For years they scared money out of us by using the specter of an anti-choice Supreme Court -- but when the time came for them to make good on their promises to defend choice, they caved. What was all that money used for again?
They are a sham organization and are trying to re-assert their relevance. They can't, it's gone.

Samuel Alito (5.00 / 5) (#2)
by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:43:44 PM EST

Only in the Village could an abortion rights group that didn't fight Samuel Alito have any credibility whatsoever.

NARAL sucks and not because it endorsed Obama. It sucks because of the Broder-esque way it tries to go about defending reproductive rights.

IMO (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:44:55 PM EST

This strategy of "let's try and get everyone to agree that the primary is over" is going to backfire. Again.

This back-and-forth merely serves to highlight the fact that many Clinton supporters do not consider the primary over.

While I'm not so sure myself that the outcome is in doubt, I know this much: if the Obama campaign were 100% confident that the nomination is settled, they would not be trying to give Hillary the bum's rush. They could tell everyone to wait 3 weeks with the endorsements and it wouldn't change a thing... but for some reason they're in a big hurry to roll them all out. Interesting.

Rolling (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:36:29 PM EST

out endorsements means tanking poll numbers. Remember the Dean campaign? It's what they did.


: Exactly (none / 0) (#55)
by cal1942 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:30:33 PM EST

I Tend To Agree (none / 0) (#34)
by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:44:40 PM EST

I look at the media environment and ask myself whether the democratic party has the courage to buck the coronation of Obama and I always answer no. I don't care if polls showed him losing California and New York, the democrats I know and mistrust still wouldn't have the spine to buck the MSM narrative (that's why the MSM narrative sucks so badly for democrats).

Yet, despite what my mind and eyes tell me, I cannot figure out why Obama can't wait three weeks. It's in his best interest for the GE. Why scramble today to get Edwards' endorsement (and I have to believe there was some cost involved)? Why plan a May 20th Mission Accomplished announcement?

I understand wanting to take no chances, but this still seems extreme. They are risking his viability in the general election over three weeks.

Perhaps they really are scared of the psychological effect of Hillary nailing down the popular vote? Maybe they're upset SDs aren't moving to shut this thing down?

I don't know. But something doesn't make sense.


Good for them! (5.00 / 6) (#4)
by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:45:35 PM EST

NARAL is pathetic. They are chasing the cha-ching.

: Glad To Know There Are A Few Sane (none / 0) (#41)
by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:54:36 PM EST

organizations left. NARAL had been losing it's way for sometime, but this endorsement of obama, based on such lame arguments, seals the deal...they are lost and their credibility will be suspect in many arenas.

Screw em all (5.00 / 10) (#5)
by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:50:34 PM EST

I'm doing GOTV tomorrow here in KY for Hillary.

Thank you for doing so (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:55:39 PM EST

and I wish I could get away to help, too. Please post about how it goes there. Will the Edwards endorsement make a difference there, do you think?


: I really don't think so (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:02:24 PM EST

people are excited about Hillary's candidacy and don't believe much of what the media says anyways. And sad to say, but Obama has already been defined.

: It Seems Edwards Coming On Board Is A (none / 0) (#43)
by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:55:59 PM EST

little late in the game. It will show the electorate in KY that obama's pandering knows no bounds and Edwards backing could be bought for a song.

Traitors (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by JoeCHI on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:51:19 PM EST

UGH!

I can't wait to vote against Obama.

No Deference (5.00 / 7) (#7)
by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:52:45 PM EST

They rushed to bury Hillary on a day when she was celebrating a great victory. Shame on them.

As I watch Edwards, I just shake my head at the number of women who booed Hillary's name and sit in a trance behind Obama.

If only women most had the sense of pride in their own that other groups do. Why turn on a woman that has used her power in the service of their own goals?

Shame indeed - totally classless of Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by Lisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:10:22 PM EST

Yes, three more weeks of a campaign that normally lasts that long would just devastate the party.

Three less weeks the attack ads begin.

But more likely, three more weeks to make the Kennedy boys look like the morons they are.

So they threw Hillary under the bus (yet again) because they were embarrassed by their own stupidity.

AS IF the whole country will not become aware in short order.


: er... (none / 0) (#65)
by Lisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:54:20 PM EST

I could have worded that better, I used the word "moron" in a weak moment and there is no edit key on these things...
Let me put it this way, Kennedy and his pals in the party elite who engineered the Obama power grab thought they could pull it off but are having doubts. The made some key miscalculations. Hillary is shining light on the plot that has more holes than Swiss cheese. So they want her out of the way.
More on the plot:
http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-american-disenfranchisement.html

Well... (none / 0) (#9)
by Cal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:55:10 PM EST

...they could've been paid by some entity to boo.


Deference? (none / 0) (#12)
by CLancy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:56:45 PM EST

That doesn't make much sense. What was so special about Clinton's victory in the WV primary that it requires the courtesy of politically influential organizations not endorsing her opponent?

I'm surprised by NARAL's timing, it seems a little early, given their argument, but there's nothing untoward about it.


Well gosh (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:09:38 PM EST

maybe because NARAL would like to continue collecting contributions down the road from Hillary's supporters?


If Clinton supporters (none / 0) (#22)
by CLancy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:15:22 PM EST

are that thin-skinned, maybe they should get out of politics all together. Just because an organization or a politician endorses Obama, it should not be automatically construed as a rejection of Clinton. It isn't always a zero-sum game where candidates and their supporters are binary opposites. I support Obama, but that doesn't mean I hate Clinton or those who support her.

Did you even read NARAL's endorsement? It was pretty tepid. It's certainly nothing to get exorcised over.


I should add (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by CLancy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:18:20 PM EST

that the same can be said for Obama supporters. ie, in the blog-world, Aravosis at AmericaBlog seems way too far gone to really bother reading anymore. He acts as if Clinton continuing will bring about the end times or something.


: Wonder what... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Cal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:23:36 PM EST

...Aravosis thinks of Donnie McClurkin?

Heh (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:21:05 PM EST

It's stupid to alienate potential customers. Whether they are "thin-skinned" for being alienated is completely beside the point.

My wife cancelled her MoveOn membership the day they decided to endorse Obama. Is she thin-skinned? Maybe. Has MoveOn lost her as a member? Yep, they sure have. And an awful lot of people just like her.

I am starting to wonder if Obama has even a single supporter who understands the concept of unity and how to achieve it.


: I dumped MoveOn (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by cal1942 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:10:43 PM EST

when they endorsed Obama as well but not because of Obama. It was because they endorsed anyone at all.
Their email announcing the move stated that they had polled their membership to determine if they should endorse. I had received no such notice and I had been a frequent contributor.
I felt that an organization of that type was way out of line in making any endorsement.

Do You Really Want Clinton Supporters To (none / 0) (#44)
by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:57:35 PM EST

get out of politics ALTOGETHER? Unfortunately for Obama, according to the exit polls many of them are already planning to stay home in November rather than vote for Obama.

Seems to me your comment is trying to increase that number. Counterproductive IMO.


Tepid or not (none / 0) (#52)
by cal1942 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:20:45 PM EST

organizations like NORAL are foolish to get involved in intra-party politics.

Let them save their endorsements for the GE.

Because of NORAL's other foolish and TEPID positions in the recent past their endorsement today should give pause to any Obama supporters who are pro-choice.

NORAL should have been strident in opposition to the Roberts nomination. They were not. So today is no surprise. Obama wanted to vote to confirm Roberts until he was warned that such a move would be politically damaging.


: Opps (none / 0) (#54)
by cal1942 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:25:24 PM EST

NARAL not NORAL. Sheesh.

NARAL (none / 0) (#14)
by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:00:03 PM EST

is politically influential?


: NARAL (none / 0) (#17)
by CLancy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:02:50 PM EST

if they weren't, then why get in a huff over it? It's an old school org now, and a little out of it of late, but for years, when it came to supporting pro-choice issues & laws, it was pretty much NARAL & NOW.

Well (none / 0) (#53)
by cal1942 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:23:26 PM EST

it was timed BECAUSE of Clinton's win in W VA to help prop up Obama's flagging fortunes.

Surprised you can't see that.


What's untoward (none / 0) (#64)
by cal1942 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:48:39 PM EST

about it IS the timing. It's meant to shore up a sliding Obama just as the Edwards endorsement is meant to prop up someone who's in decline.

IMO the Edwards endorsement is also meant to try to keep a Clinton win in KY from being a huge runaway. Didn't Edwards get something like 7% of the W VA vote?


Yes! (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Cal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:53:40 PM EST

Damn straight, NWPC.

Maybe off topic? (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by OrangeFur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:58:35 PM EST

But on women's issues, apparently Obama decided to refer to a woman reporter today as "sweetie". I don't think it's my pro-Clinton bias, but it comes off as quite condescending and belittling to me. The reporter is clearly offended.

YouTube link

Apparently he did this at least once before, in Pennsylvania, to a female factory worker as well.

Thank God the reporter finished up... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Shainzona on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:04:17 PM EST

her on-air report with "this sweetie didn't get an answer to her question."

Obama (well, I can't say what Obama should do...I don't want to get banned here. I need the mental support.)


: Lack of sun can be very harmful ! (none / 0) (#40)
by gandy007 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:53:45 PM EST

Shainzona,
What you are thinking doesn't perchance have to do with the nether regions of the anatomy and deprivation from the energizing rays of the sun, does it.
I agree.

I got mine (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by BevD on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:49:26 PM EST

huh, Obama? This is exactly what I don't like about this guy, he's up a rung on the ladder and his response is to kick the woman on the bottom rung off the ladder.


This would be like (5.00 / 0) (#37)
by Foxx on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:51:45 PM EST

Hillary (or anyone) referring to a black male reporter as "sonny."


So unprofessional, so unpresidential (5.00 / 0) (#45)
by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:59:21 PM EST

of Obama. This is how he handles media? This is how he would talk to women professionals in the federal government? (Please, please don't tell me he would talk this way to women heads of state.:-)

Hostile environment suit waiting to happen in the White House. Should be interesting to follow on a legal blog, so TL still would have us all here.


: I remember defending him... (none / 0) (#48)
by OrangeFur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:03:57 PM EST

... when he talked about Hillary having tea with foreign leaders. But now I wonder.

Obma is incredibly condescending to women (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Lisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:11:35 PM EST

It's one of the first things I noticed about him.

You know, I can't think of one thing I like about Obama. It's that hard.


That's close to a last straw for me. What (none / 0) (#32)
by tigercourse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:37:53 PM EST

kind of guy are we electing here?


: I would hope... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by OrangeFur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:49:03 PM EST

... that even at my least inhibited, just before passing out in a drunken stupor, that I would never say anything like that.
How utterly demeaning and dismissive. The chuckles from all the men around him doesn't help at all.
This is right up there with Bush's impromptu massage of Angela Merkel.

Pat Buchanan (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:13:15 PM EST

turd that he is, is the only analyst on MSNBC who makes any sense over this whole issue. He pointed out that they're just trying to blunt the impact of WV and make people forget that Obama has big problems among working class voters. Pure haka.

In agreement here (5.00 / 0) (#38)
by IzikLA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:52:16 PM EST

I never thought much of Pat, but wow he is a voice of sanity amongst the spinning heads over at MSNBC lately. Andrea Mitchell is working overtime to have us believe that Obama would have won WV if only he had campaigned there.

I think the one good thing that will come of all this is that KY will vote and nothing will have changed. The fact of the matter is Edwards never got that many votes in these states. Clinton did and she has expanded that base even. It'll be a KY blow-out and Obama's excuses are getting quite slim at this point.


Upside down world (none / 0) (#28)
by cherubic18 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:25:28 PM EST

when Pat Buchanan makes sense.

Does this mean I have turn straight and date men now? ;)


LOL! (none / 0) (#33)
by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:39:19 PM EST

I am not going to go that far yet.


: Well, (5.00 / 0) (#39)
by cherubic18 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:53:36 PM EST

Obama is vague about what his 'change' entails, so I didn't know just what was expected of me ...

lol...I Was Thinking Why Am I Liking Pat B. (none / 0) (#46)
by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:40 PM EST

so much these days.....he gets it! Even the democratic strategists and fairly objective pundits don't get it. What has our world become?


: Me too - it's like he's the only one who gets it (5.00 / 0) (#57)
by Lisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:52:00 PM EST

Buchanan actually knows POLITICS. He sits there talking to these fantasyland "creative class" fools he knows damned well are going to get rude awakenings, and doesn't come right out and say, what the hell are you guys smoking?, he just politely shakes his head in amazement. It's like he figures, well, it's the other side making asses of themselves, so he's going to give a professional opinion, but it's their funeral.

There was supposed to be a 6:15 (5.00 / 0) (#31)
by nycstray on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:37:37 PM EST

Press Conference tonight, but don't know if it happened. Found this in the blog comments at the Clinton blog:

6:15 p.m. TONIGHT: Members of Congress To Hold Press Conference On Hillary's Strong Pro-Choice Record
Clinton National Campaign Co-Chair Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and other Members of Congress will hold a press conference at 6:15 p.m. EDT tonight to discuss Hillary Clinton's strong pro-choice record.
Members voicing their support today for Clinton's advocacy on behalf of a woman's right to choose include, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Rep. Nita Lowey, Rep. Jane Harman, Rep. Diane Watson, Rep. Diana DeGette, Rep. Doris Matsui, Rep. Laura Richardson, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Rep. Louise Slaughter, Rep. Allyson Schwartz, Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, Rep. Corrine Brown, Rep. Yvette Clarke, Rep. Darlene Hooley, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, Rep. Linda Sanchez, Rep. Tammy Baldwin, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Rep. Hilda Solis, Rep. Nydia Velazquez, Rep. Betty Sutton, Rep. Grace Napolitano and Rep. Shelley Berkley.
Wednesday, May 14
6:15 p.m. EDT
Members of Congress Discuss Hillary's Strong Pro-Choice Record
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Second Floor Conference Room
430 South Capitol Street
Washington, DC

: Yay, Tammy Baldwin! (none / 0) (#47)
by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:03:04 PM EST

First woman in Congress from my state. I'll have to tell her she did good again.
My Congresswoman not so much, not on the list. She will hear from me, too. No more donations, and I'll watch to see if someone is run against her. . . .
Btw, I gather that Obama stepped all over this, too, with the timing of the Edwards endorsement? Not that media would pay attention to a silly group of some women -- are they important, these women? -- talking about women's rights.

This isn't the first time (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by cal1942 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:55:37 PM EST

NARAL has been out to lunch.

They stupidly endorsed Lincoln Chaffee over Sheldon Whitehouse in the Senate race in 2006.

Their reason was that Chaffee had a fine voting record regarding reproductive choice.

It should have been obvious that it was a foolish coice because Whitehouse was also pro-choice and would help Democrats gain a majority in the Senate.

These people have a very juvenile grasp of politics. This is an illustration of why it's been so difficult to turn the nation around. Organizations that aren't able to understand how government works.

Would you like to ask Nancy (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Iphie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:10:33 PM EST

to justify the endorsement?

Participate in a live webchat on Friday, May 16 at 3:00pm Eastern (12:00pm Pacific) with Elizabeth Shipp and Nancy Keenan on why NARAL endorsed Barack Obama. Submit your questions by Thursday, May 15 to get priority status. Submit questions here

A question I'd like to ask is how comfortable is she with her candidate responding to a female reporter's question with a dismissive "sweetie?"

Oh, yeah (none / 0) (#51)
by Iphie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:13:59 PM EST

If you'd like to contact the national NARAL office, try these field@ProChoiceAmerica.org (202) 973-3000


: thanks (none / 0) (#59)
by DFLer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:53:27 PM EST

I told them I was resigning from their boys club.

Yes, LARAL is wrong! (1.00 / 1) (#58)
by Laureola on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:52:25 PM EST

LARAL is wrong.
Edwards is wrong.
Richardson is wrong.
Kerry is wrong.
Dodd is wrong.
Kennedy is wrong.
Shriver is wrong.
Oprah is wrong.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Iris, (none / 0) (#25)
by Cal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:20:00 PM EST

You crack me up! :)

NARAL lost me when they didn't back Ned Lamont (none / 0) (#56)
by Lisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:47:29 PM EST

I used to faithfully give them money every year. Ever since then I gleefully rip their envelope in shreds every time they send it - and they keep sending one after another. I must have ripped up 100 of them so far.

I wrote to them at the time and they accused me of partisanship.

They went to the Donna Brazile school of emailship.

: please recycle those shreds! (none / 0) (#60)
by DFLer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:54:18 PM EST

This is foolish (none / 0) (#63)
by fuzzyone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:38:15 PM EST

I don't care much because a) I support Obama (though that does not mean I hate Clinton, thank you) b) NARAL has been dead to me since they supported Lieberman.

To me its like the MoveOn endorsement. They lose credibility with a good part of their constituency in exchange for what exactly? Clinton and Obama are carbon copies on choice in every way that matters. What is he going to do for them as a result of this?

More dumb politics from NARAL.

Apparently state NARAL (none / 0) (#66)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:27:59 PM EST

offices aren't so keen on "teh endorsement".

Washington

New York

Probably others too ;-).

Maybe state offices still deserve a little bit of respect. ;-). The federal office? Not so much.

Bah! (none / 0) (#67)
by lucky leftie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:25:23 PM EST

NARAL endorsed Lieberman, for crying out loud. I stopped donating to them years ago, when they used Alito as a pretext for soliciting money, then did NOTHING to fight his nomination. I have no use for them.

NARAL Endorsement is No Surprise (none / 0) (#68)
by Niffari on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:53:24 AM EST

NARAL is endorsing a candidate now because it appears the primary is basically over. Given that one high ranking member of the org publically endorsed Obama months ago, it should come as no surprise. The timing perhaps, but not the choice. I don't know if there's a background beef between NARAL and Clinton. If so, it might explain the timing.

However, the criticism of NARAL by Emily's List and other groups is totally ridiculous. No one Democratic candidate has or should have a lock on pro-choice orgs. They owe no candidate anything. These PACs do a great job getting out the vote for candidates and promoting Democratic Party platform issues. That's enough.