NARAL Endorses Obama

The pro-choice organization NARAL has endorsed Barack Obama.

Of course, they also endorsed Joe Lieberman and had a hand in giving us Justice Sam Alito.

More here and here.

< Hillary Picks Up Tenn. Superdelegate After W. VA Win | Will May 31 Be The Biggest Day Of The Campaign? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    and Lincoln Chaffee (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:29:19 PM EST

    Chaffee was a perfectly good endorsement. . . (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:44:32 PM EST
    for NARAL.  Based on their stated endorsement criteria he deserved their endorsement.  This one is harder to understand.

    It was an outrageous endorsement (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:49:41 PM EST

    Oh for those who will now call me a Clinton shill, I suggest you review my posts on NARAL over the years. It is one of the most contemptible of advocacy groups.


    I thought (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:05:47 PM EST
    Chaffee was more understandable than Rape Gurney Joe  as Jane Hamsher dubbed him.

    Um (none / 0) (#84)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:26:30 PM EST
    "Understandable" is not really the issue.  You can do something that's both understandable and stupid.

    What BTD is saying, and I agree 100% with him on this point, is that if the stated endorsement criteria requite a Chafee endorsement than the criteria are an ass.


    The writing was on the wall... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    He was headed out the door.

    Another bureacracy that perpetuates itself.... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by jerry on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:30:45 PM EST

    I've noticed (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by lisadawn82 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    that some activist organizations that set up office in DC end up going after money to ensure their existence rather than fight for what they were sent to DC for in the first place.  

    ever since the HRC endorsed Obama (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:41:09 PM EST
    I have been sending their fundraising letters back with a note suggesting they get their new BFF Obama to get Donnie McClurkin to do a fundraiser for them.

    When I was writing about (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by lisadawn82 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:46:46 PM EST
    "some" organizations I was definitely thinking about HRC.  They are so worried about raising money that they've given up the fight.  Say what you want about the NRA but they at least fight for what they believe in.  

    What Oganizations forget is that if you fight your heart out then the money will come.


    The HRC is a perfectly good activist group (none / 0) (#71)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    as long as you're an exclusive member of the "white middle class gay man" club.

    most groups (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:16:31 PM EST
    are perfectly fine for the white middle class gay man.  IOn the other hand, you seldom find lesbians who are log cabin republicans.

    I have to admit I wasn't surprised when they jumped onto the hot new thing like a sugar daddy at a Palm Beach boxer party.

    (Yes, I am still very bitter and stopped supporting the HRC, too.  When you think of all Clinton did for them, all the crap she took to support gay causes...ugh.)


    the endorsment was a disgrace (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:34:09 PM EST
    and it came right after Donnie McClurkin if I remember correctly.

    In theory, I support any gay activist group (none / 0) (#105)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:47:17 PM EST
    because visibility is so vital. Yeah, they might not be in sync with all my goals or issues but I think actual presence is a good thing.

    But, the sh*t they pulled with ENDA was the breaking point. While I don't expect the HRC to be able to cover every issue and constituency, they actively threw a group under the bus. To support the trans-inclusion bill and then to withdraw that support without a fight? That is unacceptable.


    they went from advocacy (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:21:15 PM EST
    to special interest in the blink of an eye.

    We fight for everyone or we fight for no one.  Once we start compromising and leaving out one group to benefit the other, we have lost the high ground.  Well, worse than that, we have put ourselves into the gutter.


    i don't think it has anything (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by londonamerican on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:41:02 PM EST
    to do with being a middle-class gay guy. the HRC just long ago sold their collective soul to whatever politicians they thought were in the ascendant. to that extent their endorsement is merely a restatement of the media echo chamber's conventional wisdom

    but supporting someone who tours with out-and-out homophobes realy is a new low, even for the hrc.


    Contact NARAL (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Cal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:33:33 PM EST
    NARAL Pro-Choice America
    1156 15th Street, NW Suite 700
    Washington, DC 20005

    Main Number: 202.973.3000
    Main Fax: 202.973.3096
    Media Relations: 202.973.3032
    Membership Information: membership@ProChoiceAmerica.org
    Legacy Gifts: plannedgiving@ProChoiceAmerica.org

    Rec'd You For Posting the Info (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by creeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:40:59 PM EST
    but they won't listen.  

    They're betting on Obama.  The fact that Hillary has always strongly supported their purported goals doesn't enter into the equation.

    It's about power.


    I just left a blistering voice mail (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by angie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:48:05 PM EST
    when you call they direct you to the "political department" and you get a voice mail. I recounted Obama's statements re: how pro-choicers don't understand the "moral wrenching decision" that abortion entails, how he had to be talked out of voting for CJ Reobers and that their endorsement was a slap in the face to all women who do in fact know what a "moral wrenching decision" an abortion is and which is why we believe men in Washington D.C. have no business interfering with it.

    Go, angie! (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Cal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:56:47 PM EST
    They don't get to pull this despicable s*** without hearing from us.

    And Then There's (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by The Maven on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:14:28 PM EST
    the response Obama (and/or his campaign staff acting in his name) gave to Reproductive Health Reality Check last December:
    Does Sen. Obama support any restrictions on abortion, or does he believe it should be entirely up to women?

    Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

    You could drive a truck through that loophole.  For the record, in case anyone is wondering, this is the response to the same question provided by the Clinton campaign:
    Senator Clinton believes abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. She has worked throughout her career to accomplish that goal by working to reduce the teen pregnancy rate and providing greater access to family planning. She strongly opposed the so-called "partial birth abortion" bill when it was considered by the Senate. She supported an alternative bill that, consistent with Roe v. Wade, would have prohibited post-viability abortions except when, in the medical judgment of an attending physician, abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.
    Somewhat evasive, but seemingly a whole lot closer to preserving a woman's right to choose.

    Honestly (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by cdalygo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:33:34 PM EST
    Having NARAL endorse your opponent is like "being called ugly by a pig."

    Aw.... (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Dr Molly on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    pigs aren't ugly! They're cute.

    And smart! (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by stillife on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:38:46 PM EST
    Smarter than NARAL, for sure.

    Apologies to the Pig Lovers (none / 0) (#22)
    by cdalygo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:44:06 PM EST
    I forgot to add the word proverbial.

    But y'all know what I meant. :>


    Yes we do! (none / 0) (#78)
    by Dr Molly on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:20:05 PM EST
    It's actually a pretty catchy phrase.

    I Gave Up On NARAL (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by creeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:34:41 PM EST
    years ago.  They had become so triangulating that their original purpose seemed lost.

    What's the difference between the two (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:36:07 PM EST
    candidates that would even merit the organization picking one over the other?

    Nothing in that article suggests that this endorsement was about anything other than their own self-importance.

    Typical NARAL though.  They are about as politically shrewd as a fence post.

    They should have said that they'd be happy with either and left it at that.

    Remember when... (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    there was a big "boycott NARAL" push over at the Orange?

    50p says that the group has made a recovery a la "it is far more supportive of women's reproductive rights than NOW...."


    I Remember That (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by creeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:44:00 PM EST
    Quote my dad:  "It all depends on whose ox is being gored."

    Your papa. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:09:11 PM EST

    Yeah, it was Unity Ponies vs 'Special Interests' (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:49:38 PM EST
    A brave, objective group of Stay at Home Mommies and Daddies Who Blog Against Choice got into attack formation and went after NARAL -- the official representative of the Special Interest that was ruining the Dem Brand.

    Uncovered in NARAL's fiendish mandate was that it stood for, among other things, selfish women who selfishly wouldn't have kids and selfishly held the Dems from political dominance.

    I'm a regular supporter of NARAL at all levels, but I don't like them endorsing Obama, who's platform to Unite with the Right(Wing) is more ANTI-choice than anything. I'll see what's in my email though.


    Well (none / 0) (#86)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:28:25 PM EST
    I don't see how anyone could excuse NARAL's endorsement of Chafee over Whitehouse.  "Pro-choice Republicans" vote for judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade; pro-choice Democrats don't.  Really, really boneheaded in my opinion.

    Some "pro-coice" Dems do vote for (none / 0) (#88)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:31:28 PM EST
    anti-choice dems. Leahy for one. Feingold. Obama wanted to.

    Yep. But my Senator Feingold's (none / 0) (#141)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:46:08 PM EST
    bad votes always seem to get excused by the so-called progressives.  Sad, as he could get pushed to do better, if they would unwrap the Teflon they put around him.  He's a pol, he's always been a pol from 'way back in this state, and he can be pushed.  He just always makes it sound so highly principled -- even when voting for Ashcroft, against Dems, etc.

    actually... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:30:52 PM EST
    I'm very pro-choice (some would argue rabid).

    And I was pretty upset with NARAL after the endorsement of Chaffee over Whitehouse.


    And I am no "Unity Pony" (none / 0) (#89)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:32:20 PM EST
    so if you could back off your generalizations a smidge...that would be great.

    Like I Said Before....Who Cares? I Don't (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:39:58 PM EST
    believe anything good will come of this endorsement.  If obama thinks this is going to get him the women's vote, he needs to take a deep breath and think again, and again, and again.

    So am I to take it (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by mbuchel on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    you think McSame will win/deserves the women's vote over Obama?  I know Obama is a dirty word around here, but if you aren't solely driven by personality (and the desire to punish Obama for beating HRC) and care one bit about women's issues then I don't know that it's a very difficult choice between Obama and McSame.

    You're reading a lot into her post.... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:49:42 PM EST
    ...all she said was

    If obama thinks this is going to get him the women's vote, he needs to take a deep breath and think again, and again, and again.

    McCain's name didn't come up, unless I'm just to blind to see it.


    No. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM EST
    HRC deserves it over Obama.

    Nice try.


    Bingo! (none / 0) (#147)
    by bridget on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:14:38 PM EST
    Wow...I said all that? Man, Am I Good. (none / 0) (#101)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:41:15 PM EST
    Get real and don't come here trying to twist people's words.  obama has a problem with women voters...I never alluded to McCain in any way. FYI
    obama hasn't won yet, no matter how much obama followers spin it.

    I'll bet they think they can raise money (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    off of Obama.

    I'll bet (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:47:24 PM EST
    they already have.

    Voting "Present" Gets An Endorsement? (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by JoeCHI on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:45:14 PM EST
    "Present" is not Presidential!

    Let's remember that (none / 0) (#128)
    by mg7505 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    Bush wasn't even present much of the time. So even if I have to hold my nose and vote for Obama, I can be sure that he'll be around.

    these people NARAL, HRC (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:45:41 PM EST
    understand one thing.  money.
    stop giving it to them.  tell everyone you know to stop giving it to them.  and tell them why.

    HRC==human rights campaign (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by boredmpa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    Just in case anyone is confused in this context...

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:07:02 PM EST

    yes. I was very confused. Maybe (none / 0) (#68)
    by derridog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:10:54 PM EST
    you need a new acronym for that.

    NARAL called me a while ago. (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    I told the caller that I withdrew my support from NARAL purposely because they were supporting anti-choice and anti-woman elected officials.

    The man (of course) was dripping condescension when he asked me for details.

    I told him about Joe Lieberman and his despicable endorsement of the idea that rape victims could be turned away by hospitals for religious reasons.

    He got more and more annoyed. We both hung up about the same time.

    They don't want to hear it; not even from people who used to send them money.

    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:33:05 PM EST
    I got a really dismissive email back when I contacted them about the Chafee endorsement.

    There are a lot of groups out there fighting for progressive causes.  I can choose to give my money to the groups that do so in an effective manner.

    I don't give money to help NARAL elect "pro-choice Republicans" who turn right around and vote for anti-choice judges.


    Sure, and probably some Obama.... (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:46:15 PM EST
    ...supporters will use it to try to guilt trip Hillary voters, but it ain't going to work, at least not on this Hillary supporter.

    Yup, all my guilt goes to my kids. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by leis on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:50:45 PM EST
    Where G*d intended.

    Well I'm half Greek (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by angie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:53:38 PM EST
    so all my guilt goes to my mother. ;-)

    I'm sorry to see that, (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by eleanora on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    especially since Senator Obama made some borderline anti-choice comments at the Faith Forum and has said the earlier strong support for reproductive rights on his website was "standard Democratic boilerplate" done by his staff.

    "NARAL officials said the decision wasn't intended to be a snub of Clinton, who is running to be the first female president.

    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."

    Not NARAL's job to heal that rift. As a member, I'm emailing Nancy Keenan right now with my disappointment and concern over her injecting her organization into this campaign for political reasons and not policy ones related to their mission.

    I dont see how this is not a snub to Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by ajain on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    That is pretty outrageous in itself.
    There is plenty of time for healing and this is certainly a snub and a big one. She is still in the race, there is no credible way to not see this as a snub.

    I agree (none / 0) (#133)
    by mg7505 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:35:10 PM EST
    Did they even need to make an endorsement in the first place? Why not just wait until we actually have a nominee, and then endorse the Democrat over the Republican? That would be a much better use of their leverage -- they wouldn't alienate their  members who support Hillary, and everyone would be on board together.

    How ironic that THIS is their way of overcoming 'divisive politics' -- just divide your own supporter base! They need to realize that endorsements are by definition a way to pick one candidate OVER the other(s). Since Obama isn't yet the nominee, it is by definition picking Obama OVER Clinton -- thus at least a put-down, if not a highly counterproductive snub.


    oh, yeah (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:59:13 PM EST
    I got the "heal the rift," crap, too.  She said he'd unite us.  I said, "Do I sound united with NARAL to you?"  And she said, "I understand tempers are hot now, but in time..."

    How f-ing patronizing.

    They have the statistics--aa's are less likely to support legal access to abortion than whites.  If they wanted to heal this f-ing rift, they would have stayed out of it.


    I'm really torn about cutting (none / 0) (#69)
    by eleanora on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    off the money I give NARAL. If we all do that, they'll be even more dependent on largesse from that weird money machine that Obama and Dean are building where you're not supposed to give to any other liberal organizations. But if I keep supporting them, they'll assume I approve of this. And they really need to stop saying it's about hot tempers. Next they'll be calling us "hysterical," argh >:(

    Eleanora, Look. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by derridog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:17:34 PM EST
    They are selling out for money.  They are selling women down the river to a man who thought voting for Supreme Court Justice Roberts wasn't a bad idea and would have done it if not for political considerations.  They are selling out women who object to the incredible misogyny pushed by Obama's supporters and the MSM.  You would be supporting the idea that women think it's all okay for Hillary to be called a b...h or a c...t or a f...ing Wh...!  I guess Naral is fine with the Hillary nutcracker, in which you open her legs to crack "nuts."

    How can they possibly represent themselves as supporters of Women's Rights?  They are looking for money and, if I were you, I would make sure they had to find it elsewhere!


    exactly what derridog said! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Dr Molly on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:22:28 PM EST
    Ouch. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by eleanora on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:33:00 PM EST
    Really excellent points, but it's pretty painful to acknowledge that. Thanks for saying this 'cause you're right. I'll increase my contributions to Planned Parenthood and NOW by the amount that used to go to NARAL and make sure they know why.

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#97)
    by derridog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:38:39 PM EST
    Eleanor...Send Them A Nickel and They Will (none / 0) (#103)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    get your message and you still made a contribution....

    I'm sending 9 cents (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by mg7505 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    because they're not getting a dime out of me after this.

    I love that -- I just called and said that (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:50:35 PM EST
    but I think I must mail them your message with nine pennies, too -- in the envelope in the next mailing they send, so they'll be out more for postage. :-)

    Good Thinking!! (none / 0) (#150)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:51:51 PM EST
    Absolutely patronizing (none / 0) (#146)
    by bridget on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:09:55 PM EST
    When I read the "healing the rift" thing I couldn't believe my eyes.

    Thanks so much for posting your call. I was wondering about the three weeks too and the McCain explanation she gave you sounds like the numero uno Obama campaign talking point.

    thanks again


    Look at that. Man, I am never going (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:18:55 PM EST
    to vote for this guy..."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."

    That there is a white woman's guilt trip for having the audacity to support Hillary for President.  


    money? (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:52:39 PM EST

    I just got off the phone with them (5.00 / 12) (#48)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:52:40 PM EST
    Backstory: I re-upped with the leadership council two months ago (as I have for ten years) and was assured then that they would support both candidates and not endorse until there was a nominee.  I actually had them on the phone and extracted this promise.  I reiterated: You won't endorse either Obama or Clinton until the winner is declared?  Because, then, I could deal with that.  I was a good little pro-choice Dem.  Let's see who wins fair and square, then I have no problem.

    So, today, I called this same person and asked, "uh, wtf?", and she said Obama's the presumptive nominee, he has more delegates, more of the popular vote, and MORE MONEY.  I told her that the popular vote boat was sailing, and what's more that Obama's financial director was encouraging folks not to give money to PACs and 527s, but to funnel it to the campaign.

    I then asked why they couldn't have waited at least three weeks until the voting was over, and she said it was important to start doing ads against McCain to define the differenes.  I asked why they couldn't attack McCain without mentioning a dem nominee, and she said that they all felt it was the right thing to do.  That's it.  Ten years donating thousands, many years before that sending in nickles and dimes.  No more.

    I think it boils down to mone for themy, and they all think they're all going to get a piece of the Obama cash.  I told them that I hoped this was the case, because they certainly would not get any more of mine.

    Ellen Malcolm has a great response (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Klio on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:02:11 PM EST
    I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.

    The link at Emily's List is broken just now; I lifted this from Ambinder.


    I no longer trust NARAL's judgment (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Anne on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:52:53 PM EST
    on the endorsement front - the Lieberman endorsement did it for me.

    Heck, Obama lost me on yet another issue when he talked about liberals not always understanding the moral aspects of abortion.  

    But, apparently, coming "this" close to voting for John Roberts and talking about abstinence education is all NARAL needs to secure their endorsement.


    NARAL for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by noholib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:01:36 PM EST
    Yes, all his "present" votes on abortion legislation in the Illinois State Legislature must have turned their heads.

    A good reason to stop donating to them.  

    Eh (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    I've long been down about NARAL and a number of other "issue" advocacy groups because they seem more interested in backing winners than advancing what is supposed to be their main cause.  See all the BS coming from Planned Parenthood of Illinois to back up Obama's voting present on abortion bills.  That's really a sign of his strong support for reproductive rights!  Riiiight.

    not to mention (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:13:01 PM EST
    that they obviously did not tell the Clinton campaign they were doing this, which I find incredibly disrespectful.  Wolfson got blindsided on that media call.

    What a mess.

    I'm canceling my membership -NT- (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:19:48 PM EST

    Given that Obama is less pro choice then (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:22:09 PM EST
    Clinton, this is very strange. Perhaps they need to check out their mission statement once in awhile.

    These (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:25:05 PM EST
    advocacy organizations have become a joke. I don't think this helps Obama much and might even hurt him some in the sense that it makes him look like a tool of the "special interests" which the GOP is planning to use.

    I beg to differ (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:47:32 PM EST
    I really think this will hurt BHO. He is already doing poorly with Catholics. He doesn't need a boost with the liberal elites -- which he already has in his pocket. It's waving a controversial issue under the noses of moderates.

    Clinton's record will speak for itself.

    right about the catholics (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    not well at all.  interesting angle I had not thought about.

    Catholics not uni-brained on abortion, rp'rights (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:42:28 PM EST
    There ARE pro-choice Catholics around you know.

    Whether that or ANY issues should be a hardcore yes/no or come down to personal conscience and a shift with the times is just as it is in any creed.

    You can see differences in those opinions at dinner tables, or in dioceses.


    and (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:42:28 PM EST
    there are anti-abortion Protestants. I think flinging this issue in the public's face -- especially when the candidate already has a  pro-choice constituency, anyway -- is not a way to pick up swing votes.

    Don't Forget They Backed Kerry In 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:03:55 PM EST
    FTR, does the general membership not have a say in who they endorse?

    "Officials said NARAL's political committee board was about evenly divided among Clinton and Obama supporters and that the decision to endorse was hard fought. Ultimately, the board voted unanimously to support the Illinois senator.

    NARAL officials said the decision wasn't intended to be a snub of Clinton, who is running to be the first female president.

    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.

    The organization endorsed Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry in 2004 when he was well on the way to securing the party's presidential nomination."

    Race trumps gender again? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:38:42 PM EST
    That was very unwise of NARAL.  And so unnecessary now.  But it has proved before that it is not good at politics -- which is one of its main reasons for existence, after all.

    The result may be that it ceases to exist.  Not a big deal, as we've got NOW, EMILY's List, and other and wiser organizations with which to work.


    My letter to my local NARAL office (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by JustJennifer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    Were you consulted regarding the NARAL national endorsement of Obama?  Surely someone must realize that pissing off the base of Clinton's supporters, which I am sure overlaps quite a bit with your own, can't be that smart for a non-profit who must be experiencing the same donor crunch that all non-profits are experiencing.  I am sad and disappointed that this endorsement came before the primaries are over and a candidate has been nominated.  It seems like a slap in the face to Clinton, who has been a advocate for women's rights for many, many years.  And a slap in the face to Clinton is a slap in the face to all of her supporters.

    I won't even get into the shame that is brought on by endorsing a candidate whose record is damn near nonexistant and what there is to report isn't exactly rosy.  I have to think that NARAL is just trying to jump on the big Obama fundraising wagon and for that I am deeply disappointed.

    Women's right to choose indeed.  

    I was right! (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:21:04 PM EST
    That bullet has been fired:


    In NARAL's (limited) defense (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:34:32 PM EST
    Their endorsements of Chafee and Lieberman were appropriate within general membership advocacy organization standards and within their own stated criteria.

    Alito's ship had already sailed. (If you want to pin blame on somebody for Alito, go after the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee who butchered the hearings.)

    But NARAL's endorsement of Obama is just craven, and inconsistent with both prior institutional consistency and prior institutional strategy. No excuses here.

    Sigh... (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by JustJennifer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:40:38 PM EST
    I have to say that this endorsement, along with the horrible and inexcusable treatment Hillary has received during this primary, makes me feel less and less secure and proud of myself as a woman in this country.  What is happening to us?  We need to fight back!!!  

    I felt I just got a slap in the face (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by bridget on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:49:41 PM EST
    from NARAL
    how Hillary must be feeling - I can only imagine ...
    Of course, it is a Hillary snub.

    Just came online and this piece of news was just about the first thing I heard today.

    NARAL back Obama over Clinton because he is favored to get the nom -
    BUT how - as NARAL hopes - will this decision at this point in the campaign (esp. right after Hillary's stunning WV victory) heal the growing rift between black voters and white female activists?

    What kind of abstract idea is that?

    What is NARAL really thinking?

    I now have received reports on this (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:03:19 PM EST
    from several nasty pro-Obama siblings and other idjits in their daily anti-Clinton chortlings.

    So they think they've beat the b**ch again -- but they already were charter members of the OFB.  I don't see that this will have impact on Clinton supporters.

    It will have impact on NARAL.  And that's good.  Once an organization betrays its mission and its base, it's time for it to go.  I feel sad to say that, as it fought good fights in past.

    But then, so did the Dems, and I dropped them, too.  More funds freed for Clinton.  Works for me.

    Wow (3.00 / 2) (#20)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:43:45 PM EST
    Jeralyn, I have been a big fan of your writing and advocacy over the years.  However, I have been suprised and disappointed of late.  You remain a shining beacon of light when it comes to criminal and constitational issues.  But it saddens me to see how much credibility you have lost because of your passionate support of Hillary Clinton.

    I do not begrudge you a moment for your support of Senator Clinton.  However, in supporting her, I am afraid you have lost much perspective and, in the process, support for the very causes you have championed.  It is one thing to support a candidate.  But to denigrate and subsequently alienate huge swaths of Democrats and invaluable organizations because they deign to have a different point of view...well, that is terribly counter-productive.

    NARAL has been a tremendous advocate for women's rights and to dismiss them as you have many others who have supported Obama is, in my opinion, terribly misguided and destructive in the long-term.  This is exacerbated by the anti-Obama atmosphere that is promoted in the comments.

    Clinton and Obama are practically identical on policy.  We shouldn't be villifying our own or dismissing their legitimacy because some have made a good-faith choice between Obama and Clinton.  Disagree if you will with NARAL as to their endorsement of Obama over Clinton.  But please think of the long term consequences when you denigrate an organization that has done so much for a woman's right to choose and whose voice will be needed in the future.  

    At the end of the day, is it really worth it?  Or can we agree to disagree and still respect each others choices?  After all, isn't that one of the principle tenets of our Party and democracy?

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:47:25 PM EST
    At least you can not accuse me of ripping NARAL for Clinton purposes. My disdain for NARAL is of a longstanding nature. this is exactly what I would expect of them.

    BTW, do you have anything of SUBSTANCE to say in response to Jeralyn's post? Your "shock and dismay" is becoming quite tiresome.


    It's your petard (1.00 / 0) (#99)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:39:49 PM EST
    I just think it a terrible mistake to continually marginalize everyone who disagrees with your candidate choice.  Making things even worse, is that you marginalize your own voice in the process.   Reproductive freedoms are too important and we do not need to be giving ammunition to our opponents by attacking the very people we depend upon to advocate on our behalf.

    But I have no doubt that the scorch the earth policy will continue for some time to the detriment of our common interests.


    Amazing (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:49:49 PM EST
    Who knew, back in 2006 when BTD was ranting about NARAL and their brain-dead political strategies, it was all because he knew they would disagree with his candidate choice in 2008?

    Exactly (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:50:38 PM EST
    He is so steeped in kool aid that he can not imagine that my disdan for NARAL might predate today.

    Cults are like that.


    Heh (none / 0) (#112)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:01:26 PM EST
    OT, Obama has rejected yet another suggestion that might help him build a closer bond with the working class.

    I expect better from you Armando (none / 0) (#116)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:07:36 PM EST
    I was responding to Jeralyn's post, not to anything you wrote.  Also, I have spent the last 15 years of my life advocating on behalf of reproductive freedoms -- so if that is the cult to which you refer, I am proud to be part of it.  If, on the other hand, you were alluding to my support of Senator Obama, then your post was nothing more than an ad hominem and for which you should be ashamed.

    See my 120 (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:14:12 PM EST
    You should be ashamed of yourself. You are a blinded cult member now.

    What is Amazing... (none / 0) (#115)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    Is that I was addressing Jeralyn, not Armando.

    This was your response to me (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:12:55 PM EST

    It's your petard (1.00 / 1)

    I just think it a terrible mistake to continually marginalize everyone who disagrees with your candidate choice.  Making things even worse, is that you marginalize your own voice in the process.   Reproductive freedoms are too important and we do not need to be giving ammunition to our opponents by attacking the very people we depend upon to advocate on our behalf.

    But I have no doubt that the scorch the earth policy will continue for some time to the detriment of our common interests.

    That was a response to me. You disappoint me with your failure to acknoewledge legitimate greivances with NARAL, includng the legitimate grievance that NARAL should NOT have endorsed ANY candidate at this stage. It is divisive of them to do so.

    You are incapable of addressing real criticisms of actions that you view ads favorable to Obama. the problem is with you.  


    Not again (none / 0) (#125)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:21:53 PM EST
    Not going to go tit-for-tat with you again.  You initially replied to my post that was addressed to Jeralyn.

    Look, I do not agree with every advocacy group out there.  It is simply unreasonable to expect them to be in lockstep with everything you believe or want.  Has NARAL supported candidates that I have disagreed with?  Certainly.  However, on balance, they do far more good than bad and for that reason, shouldn't be thrown out with the bath water.  

    As far as the NARAL endorsement, I really couldn't care less.  If it was given to Clinton, it would be deserved and significant.  It happened to be given to   Obama.  I am not going to trash Emily's List for endorsing Clinton, nor would I any union, newspaper, organization or advocacy group -- because I respect their decision even if I disagree with it.  Parenthetically, are you and Jeralyn going to admonish Emily's List for endorsing Clinton before the primary season is over?

    If you say that you have been critical of NARAL before this endorsement, I believe you and respect your decision.  However, it has become all too common in this primary season to denigrate and dismiss anyone that disagrees and while satisfying in the short-term, will have serious long-term repercussions.  


    You cared enough to insult Jeralyn (none / 0) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:32:59 PM EST
    without even addressing her arguments and then you insulted me without even knowing what my longstanding beef has been with NARAL.

    Your attitude was incredibly disrespectful.


    There you go again (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:49:52 PM EST
    to you it is about Clinton. To me it is about NARAL.

    you are incapable of honestly addressing any points that are not in Obama's favor.

    Are you ACTUALLY aware of anything I have written about NARAL? Ever? You are simply displaying your own mindless support of all things Obama.

    NARAL must be defend BECAUSE they endorsed Obama. As it happens, I would have blasted them for endorsing ANYONE in this race.

    But you are now an allin cult member.

    I repeat, review my writings on NARAL. You are quite the Kool Aid man now.


    Cult Member? (none / 0) (#118)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:09:51 PM EST
    I guess posting violations do not apply to Contributors.  Before you start calling me more names Armando, you might want to go back and read my reply -- it was directed to Jeralyn, not you.  I do not know anything about your prior opposition to NARAL nor was it relevant to what I was writing--TO JERALYN.  

    our exchanges? Because you have violated our rules with your dishonest statements and attacks.

    Let's stop the game playing. you need to learn to be respectful of views that are not in tune with your own. I have treated you harshly because I expected much better from you.

    But lately you have become as bad as any Obama cultist. I have actually given you a lot of leeway.


    Can't we all just get along? (none / 0) (#140)
    by CST on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:45:25 PM EST
    So, I know everyone here takes this stuff seriously and possibly a bit too personally.  And this is the second time in two days you two have gone after each other.  But, I think that you both have points.

    Spindoctof - FYI they really don't like it when you criticize the bloggers here - and to be fair it is their blog.  They are entitled their opinions just like anyone else.

    BTD - Every time you call someone a cult member you lose your objectivity and your higher ground.  Disagree if you must, call them out if you must, but reinforcing the cult meme helps no one.

    Bottom line - we should all be able to disagree without making it personal.


    Well said (none / 0) (#145)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:04:23 PM EST
    Point taken, thank you.

    Do you not get (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by eric on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:53:04 PM EST
    what people are saying here?

    Reproductive freedoms are too important and we do not need to be giving ammunition to our opponents by attacking the very people we depend upon to advocate on our behalf.

    What people are saying is that NO, NARAL is not a group that we "depend upon to advocate on our behalf".  They have failed at that. BTD has a record of opposing NARAL.  They have made poor decsions, supported bad people, and it has become abundantly clear that NARAL has turned into a self-perpetuating lobbyist group that doesn't have much of a tie to where they came from.  That is the point of all of this.

    None of us here, as far as I can see, have suddenly come to the conclusion that NARAL is lacking simply because of this endorsement.  Rather, it is simply another in a long line of actions that have been taken that seem to betray its very purpose.


    practically identical on policy? (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:47:27 PM EST
    Beg to differ. I'm a health care provider and there are big differences there. Differences in their records, their policies on their websites.  

    And BHO has said often enough that he likes the "party of ideas," Repubs, and is not trustworthy enough. I don't want a reach across the aisle type, I want someone who stands firm.


    I am not denigrating anyone (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    I said nothing bad about NARAL. But others were very upset with they endorsed Joe Lieberman and Lincoln Chaffee and when their gang of 14 gave us Alito.

    I thought it was worth pointing out for those that didn't follow the 2006 elections and judicial nominations process.

    TalkLeft is not responsible for the comments left here and expressly states on the home page they are not the views of TalkLeft. I delete as many as I see that violate the site's civility rules and rules regarding personal attacks. I can't get them all.

    TalkLeft has repeatedly said it will support Barack Obama if he's the nominee. Please don't try and spin this into I'm trashing NARAL. I'm putting their endorsement in context.


    I trashed them (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:53:00 PM EST
    And would have here if you had not written this post.

    Jeralyn, re another endorsement: Edwards (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    is going to endorse Obama within the hour, says CNN.  Sorry to be O/T but thought you'd want to know.

    There goes hope of universal health care -- unless Edwards bargained for it.  Doubt it would work.  I'm afraid Edwards may just have bargained it away.

    Donna "I Don't Care If You Walk Out" Brazile is beside herself, of course.

    I want to hear from Elizabeth Edwards.


    NARAL Dismissed Itself (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by cdalygo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:50:13 PM EST
    Actually NARAL went off most people's radar after the Alito fiasco.

    But today's endorsement was unconscionable. Hillary is the one who led the fight on keeping emergency contraceptives available. She has championed a woman's right to choice her and abroad. In contrast, Obama is the one who couldn't find the right button to push in Illinois on key choice votes. He also did not vote to sustain the Alito filibuster. Then his aided talk him out of voting to confirm Roberts.

    What it shows is that certain individuals/groups are willing to put their self-interest above the tagline beneath their names. Not unlike Move-On.

    It's way past the time that they get called out for their hypocrisy.


    I know you weren't addressing me, but (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:54:17 PM EST
    I don't think that pointing out that NARAL has made some disappointing choices recently, and implicitly adding Obama to that list is denigrating the group. If we can agree to disagree, why can't Jeralyn say she disagrees with NARAL's choice?

    My view wouddl be that if the candidates are the same on policy, then NARAL should not have endorsed. The press release says they did it because (1) Obama is favored to win, and (2) to heal the rift between women and AAs.  Sorry, but #1 is rather cowardly. (Quick, let's jump on board before we get left behind.)  And #2 is a worthy idea, but I don't see what it particularly has to do with protecting women's reproductive rights. Admittedly, I don't know a lot about NARAL, maybe they have a much broader agenda than I am aware of.


    Clinton and Obama practically identical on policy (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by jerry on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:34:03 PM EST
    Given that, the question others have made "why endorse either of them" seems especially salient.  

    For such excellent politickers and advocates who should be eager to see either candidate win, it seems that there endorsement wasn't terribly smart, or that it was made for less than honest reasons.


    MoveOn & NARAL get same consideration from me (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:07:25 PM EST
    Except in one respect.

    I'm a former member of MoveOn. I quit when they endorsed Obama. That's the kind of endorsement they shouldn't make without letting the membership weigh in.

    I've been a longtime supporter of NARAL at all levels because they are one of the few organizations that are on the ground affirmatively protecting women's right not to have the state own our bodies.

    The situation is critical. They'll hear from me on why I deeply disagree with their endorsement of Obama, but I'll keep supporting them. If it came down to a CHOICE, they'd see some green before the Dems would (or HRC for that matter.)

    Yes, I've come on over to the HRC side, but for me it's political triage.  

    But.. (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Linus Vask on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:28:22 PM EST
    MoveOn.org had a vote though, a few days before they endorsed BO.  It was open to the whole membership.

    Not to rehash it here, but ... (1.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:36:27 PM EST
    Just as several groups have done in the Obama coronation, I thought it was hustled on through. (And the votership wasn't promised anything in return.)

    It's well-documented... (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Sawyer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:12:17 PM EST
    NARAL is obviously sexist...

    Sorry, J, that'd be NORML not NARAL (none / 0) (#119)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:12:08 PM EST
    that you're involved with.

    I'll just stfu now.


    lol (none / 0) (#152)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:57:50 AM EST
    stfu. You are the only person on this site who chastises themself, i think that is why i like ya so much despite your right brain problem.....

    NARAL and Repro Rights groups are ALWAYS wrong (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    Lefty blogs' favorite straw (wo)man to whup, NARAL used to get dragged out every couple of weeks -- particularly at Cheetoh HQ -- to be berated for

    (a) supporting Chafee and not supporting Lieberman
    (b) supporting Lieberman and not supporting the Dem(s) that Cheetoh Corps hand picked
    (c) being the chickly front on Special Interests so everyone could have a pop

    NARAL was also at fault for being out front early and often criticizing the scAlito nomination and (lack of vetting) when it was inconvenient to Dry Powder Dems.

    Harry Reid conference called the blogs who were pressuring Dems the most to turn their sights on NARAL instead so the Dems' could Keep Their Powder Dry for More Important Fights Around The Corner. (Which the toothless ones didn't even bother to attempt.)

    19 Coathanger Dems in the Senate needlessly voted to grease scAlito onto the SCOTUS.

    BTD, please. You were blogging this. Putting scAlito on NARAL is despicable.

    Uh...Jeralyn wrote the post... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:42:48 PM EST
    NARAL stinks (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:48:12 PM EST
    I would have written worse if Jeralyn had not done it first.

    I despise NARAL.


    What reproductive rights groups do you recommend? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:53:51 PM EST
    Besides broad based Planned Parenthood, ACLU and Abortion rights focused?

    Stay above the fray if that's your thing, but it's situation critical on the ground.

    (I lounge corrected on you not writing the top though.)


    Where it come to politicking - NONE (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:04:51 PM EST
    They have all made grave mistakes on the political front.

    NARAL has been one of the worst.

    I shifted my giving to groups addressing more global Constitutional issues pertaining to personal liberty which ultimately do more to protect choice than these choice groups seem to have been able to do.

    When the small group of people who have controlled that domain retire, I'll revisit the idea of supporting them - that is if they are replaced by people who are willing to break the old bad cycle of being totally idiotic about their political strategies.

    I mean seriously... why did they need to pick either Dem?  Why NOW?  Why not simply endorse the Dem candidate after the convention?  They didn't mean to imply that Clinton is lesser?  Whaaa?  Come on?  If they really don't understand that that is the inference people will draw, they are more politically tone deaf than even I thought and I have some really not nice things to say about these people.  I am a pro-choice woman and I can't tell you how many times in the past 18 years I have wished these groups would just go away because they are always doing harm - always.  It is remarkable really how at each critical point they manage to make a big mess out of any situation they insert themselves into.


    not that you asked me (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    But Emily's List is fabulous.

    The thing I like about PP is that you can immediately see how your money is benefitting women--they give them healthcare, abortion counseling and birth control.  Without insurance, some birth control pills can be around 30-40 bucks.  A min wage woman would have to work almost a whole day to pay for that.


    EList doesn't have the same mandate as NARAL (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:33:27 PM EST
    Protecting abortion rights is crucial for women's health, well being and self-determination.

    NARAL is far from perfect as an organization but local chapters are doing incredible work and don't deserve to get the slamming they do from ivory tower Creative Class types use them as a convenient representative of "evil" Special Interests to preach about.

    Emily's list takes a variety of issues into consideration.


    Emiy's List mission: (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:33:28 PM EST
    EMILY's List members are dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office.

    Which is a good strategy for me.  I have, as I said, been a long-term NARAL supporter, but they lied to me about holding back an endorsement, so I won't support them anymore.  I will split my money between Emily's List, GA Planned Parenthood and greyhound rescue (yeah, I know!)

    Meanwhile, you have every right to support whomever you want for whatever reason.  I don't think it's right when folks tell me I'm stupid and delusional and wrong for withdrawing my support of the dem party because of all the crap that has been going on with Clinton (not to mention the welcoming of rabid, anti-choice, anti-gay dems) tells me that I am no longer a part of this organization.  My vote, your money--we've each got a right to spend them where we like, and with whatever organization we think best reflects our beliefs; however, we can still think the other side is wrong to do so!


    I suggest you read my past posts (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:04:40 PM EST
    on NARAL at Daily Kos. I have no respect for them. I believe they are poor advocates for choice.

    you obviously can not accept criticism of NARAL. that is on you. I will not be quiet when the issue of choice is undermined by so called advocacy groups like NARAL.


    Yeah your hatred can really bum out a cause (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:21:51 PM EST
    I'm sure they're taking your portrait down in NARAL office breakrooms across the land.

    But apart from that sad techtonic shift in the history of reproductive rights, the increased F:M ratio in both the legal and medical professions may go a long way to resolving this issue federally.

    It's probably more economically feasible now and legally/medically efficient to make ILLEGAL abortion safer.

    Health care won't come without bolstering Roe vs. Wade first. Abortion rights (reproductive rights) is the eye of the storm in who gets to make an individual's medical and moral life decisions.


    My hatred (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:34:45 PM EST
    is based on actions.

    You are incapable of addressing the ACTIONS of NARAL.

    I imagine you were among those attacking me when I ripped NARAL for endorsing Chafeee over Whitehouse and for endorsing Lieberman over Lamont.

    When you have something substantive to add to the discussion let me know.


    Riiggghhhht (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:39:46 PM EST
    Me: All the points I made above
    You: I hate them.

    Well it's hard to argue with that 'logic' so take it as my substantive contribution that I don't hate them and you can get on with whatever it is that you do besides blog.


    You (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:27:26 PM EST
    were right about this and I completely agree.

    Honestly who cares? (none / 0) (#24)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:44:41 PM EST
    This is prolly because Obama doesn't want those independent groups funded.

    Who cares (none / 0) (#36)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:48:23 PM EST

    Who cares what the abortion industry trade group does?

    That's a right-wing frame. (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by eleanora on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:44:41 PM EST
    NARAL's mission is to protect the rights of women to control their own bodies, not to be any kind of trade industry. What some of us are objecting to here is NARAL focusing on political games rather than their actual mission.

    Except that it will make conservatives (none / 0) (#66)
    by derridog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:07:54 PM EST
    and Catholics even less likely to vote for him in the General.

    I just told NARAL never to ask me for (none / 0) (#121)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:13:47 PM EST
    anything again.

    Get the enemy! (none / 0) (#151)
    by joharmon86 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:57:38 PM EST
    These responses are amazing to me. NARAL has done extraordinary things for women's right and the pro-choice movement in this country, and they believe Obama will be strongest on that issue. But then again, anyone that doesn't support Hillary is the ENEMY! Talk about sipping the Kool Aid (is that a racist reference just out of curiosity?). I doubt if Obama were to pick Hillary anything would change in terms of the vociferous anti-Obama sentiment a segment of Clinton supporters have. Clinton herself on CNN said it would be a "terrible mistake" to pick McCain over Obama. NARAL's decision may be based on her lackluster track record with regard to women's rights, specifically her decision to impugn the dignity of a 12 year old girl while working at the DA's office who was a victim of rape in the 70's. She chose to attack the character of the rape victim and to work desperately to exculpate the rapist. Don't know if this is true, but http://youtube.com/watch?v=JsO_8xSB_r4

    if you read the press release (none / 0) (#127)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:29:24 PM EST
    it sounds a lot like an "inevitability" argument.  And they mouth some platitudes about getting past "the divisive politics of the last eight years."

    What an utterly foolish organization...and what fools so many liberals are -- throw Hillary under the bus to try to escape from divisive politics?  As if the GOP is going to go easy on Obama...good lord.

    Maybe the group thinks... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:39:25 PM EST
    that if it's supporting the candidate, then it won't feel the burn from this:
    Senator Barack Obama's campaign is steering the candidate's wealthy supporters away from independent Democratic groups, calling into question what had been expected to be the groups' central role in this year's Democratic offensive against Senator John McCain.

    Obama's national finance chairwoman, Chicago hotel mogul Penny Pritzker, told supporters at a national finance committee meeting in Indianapolis May 2, and in other conversations, not to give money to the groups, people familiar with her comments said.

    "From the beginning of this race Obama has told supporters that if they want to help his effort, they should do so through his campaign," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton, who confirmed that Pritzker has told donors not to give to the groups. "And he means exactly what he says."