NARAL's Divisive Obama Endorsement Divides . . . NARAL

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:50:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

NARAL is one of the most politically obtuse organizations I know of. I personally would never want Nancy Keenan in a position of influence in any organization I care about. Look what her ridiculous decision to jump into the Dem contest fray has wrought:

NARAL Pro-Choice America affiliates in key swing and primary states are openly distancing themselves from the decision by NARAL Pro-Choice America to endorse Illinois Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for president.

Since yesterday's announcement, NARAL groups in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, Texas and New York - Clinton's home state - have issued statements signaling their continued neutrality in the Democratic race and emphasizing that the national group did not speak for them on this matter. These groups represent nearly a quarter of NARAL's state chapters.

"This decision was not made in consultation with the affiliate network and NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon will not be endorsing a candidate in this race," said executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon Michele Stranger Hunter in a statement. "We are proud to have two strongly pro-choice candidates running for President. And we look forward to supporting whoever the nominee will be and are committed to defeating Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in November."

As Greg Sargent notes:

[T]his was a really mystifying decision for NARAL to make. All it did was alienate huge swaths of its membership and fundraising base, and it's hard to see how the endorsement did anything to accomplish the group's stated goal of uniting African Americans and female activists.

But we know from her history that Nancy Keenan is one of less effective advocacy group heads around. She has made NARAL a punch line.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The Unity Ticket - The Hard Way | Death Penalty Declining: What's Next? >

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.

NARAL's Divisive Obama Endorsement Divides . . . NARAL | 72 comments (72 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Simply stupid (5.00 / 9) (#1)
by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:52:56 AM EST

They make Donna Brazile and the DNC look like a paragon of competence.

Looks Like The NARAL Chapters Are Not (5.00 / 4) (#28)
by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:39:23 AM EST

messing around; and they are doing the right thing waiting until there is a nominee. You have to wonder what NARAL and Edwards were thinking, beside the obvious.


Based on the content of Edwards (none / 0) (#30)
by inclusiveheart on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:51:56 AM EST

speech last night, I think it was clear that he was thinking about unifying the Democratic Party.

Based on the AP report about the NARAL endorsement, I think NARAL were trying to make themselves seem relevant and being as politically stupid as they typically are.


NARAL , like Obama, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by sancho on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:00:13 PM EST

endorsed Lieberman last time around. Maybe they think that by promoting unsafe Roe supporters, they can keep the fundraising high. I've never trusted Keenan. Edwards perhaps suspects that Obama is his best bet to ensure that Edwards gets to run again in '12 and maybe Edwards can pick up some future voters with his belated and, to my mind, duplicitous endorsement now. I am not quite Hillary or bust, but I see no compelling reason to support the so-called Democartic party this fall. The NARAL endorsement at this point is absurd. Are people afraid of Obama for some reason? Or is it all the money/names he seems to raise?


: Edwards got a committment to (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by inclusiveheart on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:09:58 PM EST

the Half by Ten anti-poverty project and a stronger committment on healthcare reform out of the Obama camp. Personally, I am grateful for that because it is more likely that Obama is going to previal at this point and without Edwards influence, I think we all would have said good-bye to any real healthcare reform or economic solutions for people rather than corporations without Clinton to fight for them.

Question (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by JustJennifer on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:11:37 PM EST

Based on the email I received from my local NARAL chapter it sounds like it was a NARAL national PAC that endorsed and not the actual NARAL operational offices. What is the difference? I posted my email from the local director down below.


: All of the not-for-profit groups have (none / 0) (#48)
by inclusiveheart on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:39:57 PM EST

separate PACs in order to comply with the laws governing nonprofit orgs. Planned Parenthood for example has the operational organization and they have a separate political arm. SO if you give to Planned Parenthood proper, you are contributing to their clinics and services wing. When you give to their PAC, you are only giving to their political operations. How NARAL breaksdown beyond that - meaning these regional offices - I don't quite know. I don't really know what they do beyond political operations.

I think (none / 0) (#71)
by cal1942 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:19:20 PM EST

Edwards (a candidate I originally supported) did not unite the Democratic Party. If he thought that then maybe he was the wrong choice to begin with. I unsubscribed to the fund raising appeal he emailed to his contributors. It really makes me wonder if he didn't get a mailing list or some other consideration in return.

If he wanted to unite the party he should have done so by giving a speech at the convention, AFTER the nomination, urging unity.

All he did was anger some of his supporters. Politicos in this day and age should realize that their endorsements may not sway voters and in fact can turn people off.


I Think You Are Taking That A Little Too Far (5.00 / 3) (#45)
by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:22:41 PM EST

Nothing IMO could make Brazile like a paragon of competence.


Oh come on (none / 0) (#70)
by cal1942 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:51:22 PM EST

andgarden.

I think it's a draw.


It's called "blowback" (5.00 / 9) (#2)
by americanincanada on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:54:57 AM EST

and it ain't over yet. I have a feeling it's going to get worse.

Fundraising lists? (5.00 / 5) (#3)
by Emma on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:55:36 AM EST

Maybe NARAL thinks it will gain more w/Obama's fundraisings lists/ability than it will lose. Who knows. I don't.

I'm sure this decision (5.00 / 6) (#4)
by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:56:50 AM EST

had everything to do with fundraising.


The Lists (5.00 / 7) (#5)
by Athena on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM EST

Edwards seemed to have grabbed Obama's lists for his own fundraising drive which coincidentally started yesterday - from what I am reading, that is backfiring big time.


Coincidentally (5.00 / 5) (#10)
by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:02:42 AM EST

I got an email from Edwards at 9:16 pm last night asking for money. I did donate to his campaign but I haven't heard from them since he dropped out.

Needless to say, I unsubscribed from the mailing list.


Edwards did not make (5.00 / 0) (#27)
by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:38:46 AM EST

front page, even as a sidebar, in the big-city daily in his home county of Oconee, SC. Irrelevant. And can someone say why a fund for scholarships for students from one county in NC should get national attention? Edwards could probably fund it by himself.


Meh (none / 0) (#8)
by cawaltz on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:01:39 AM EST

I'll still give to a good cause. I disagree with Edwards but I'll be more than happy to help him end poverty.


Depends on if they'll be around... (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:06:16 AM EST

Have you seen this?


Yeah, I saw it (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by cawaltz on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:16:57 AM EST

One of his dumber positions for sure.(I disagree with him vehemently.) In my opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong with everyday people harnessing their free speech rights and using their voice to influence the political process. It is great when people feel empowered and feel like they can bepart of the process. Votevets had a huge hand in helping in 2006. It's ads were more effective than anything the DNC put out against Allen. Certainly I was apalled by Swiftboats, but just because one group was spouted fraudulent crap doesn't mean I feel like we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. It just means you put penalties in place for mistruths.


I was wondering... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM EST

if he was going to "allow" certain groups depending on whether or not they adhere to his patronage.


: Heh (5.00 / 4) (#37)
by cawaltz on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM EST

Reminds me of the Obama joke where you ask when is a union, not a really a union?
Answer: When it does commercials for Obama's opponent. Then its a special interest group. Yuck. I am finding it difficult to remeber when Obama went from strong second to third to maybe voting "present" this cycle. Ts was definitely one of those moments where I started to feel Obama wasn't a representation of where I wantedto see the country go. I've had it enugh ith politicins playing semantics(I blame semantics for Iraq). Double Yuck.

to end poverty (none / 0) (#69)
by noholib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:37:03 PM EST

To end poverty is going to require more than hand-outs to small-scale worthy projects. This country needs structural change. It needs an end to the crazy anti-tax mania - yes, promoted mightily by Saint Reagan - please remember that Senator Obama when you praise him. To end poverty or even to reduce it requires a fair tax system, investments in education and health, a fairer income distribution, and so many other things.


Athena....In What Way...Inquiriing Minds Want (none / 0) (#26)
by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:37:47 AM EST

to know...Thanks in advance for the info.


Suddenly Edwards Was Emailing (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by Athena on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:52:47 AM EST

Just viewing some online commentary - and seeing a lot of cynicism from posters who suddenly got emails from Edwards yesterday when they never had before - suspecting that Obama had given out his voter list to Edwards to fundraise. And they were all writing back to "unsubscribe" - feeling manipulated.

It all seemed tacky and cheap. But that's nothing new.


: I think it was Moveon.org (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by americanincanada on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:02:54 PM EST

who sold their mailing list. I have never been to Obama's site nor contacted EDwards. But I got an e-mail this morning.

: The O camp sent an email last night (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:46:31 PM EST

asking for donations:

Friend --
I have some very exciting news.
My good friend John Edwards is endorsing our campaign and joining our movement for change.
We're here in Grand Rapids, Michigan -- and if you receive this message in time, you can probably turn on your TV and be part of the moment.
I'm deeply honored by John's support. He is a true leader who dedicated his career to improving the lives of ordinary Americans.
John ran a strong, principled campaign for president, focusing on a number of important issues where we share common ground -- universal health care, bringing our troops home from Iraq, and eliminating poverty in America.
The way he ran his campaign was also important. He ran in a way that reflected our shared conviction that we need to fundamentally change politics.
Like our campaign, John's campaign never accepted donations from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs.
Let's welcome John Edwards to the campaign with an outpouring of the kind of grassroots support that is bringing our political process back to the people.
Make a donation of whatever you can afford now, and if you choose, include your own note to Senator Edwards. I'll make sure he gets them:
donate here
Thank you for all that you're doing,
Barack
What's interesting is the donation page link in the email takes you to a donation page with both of their pics on it, not their regular donation page.

: I sent edwards an email (none / 0) (#63)
by Mrwirez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:46:51 PM EST

3 months ago asking him to support HRC. Nothing until yesterday. I kindly told him to go "F" himself. I joined Moveon in 2003, but since 2005 saw no reason to keep going there. It is caustic and viral, the same with the daily Kos.....
Yesterday was orchestrated to cover up WV. I suppose after Kentucky there will be more. Edwards reeks of opportunist and I suppose NARAL has it's own agenda, or half of one. I think the Edwards endorsement will alienate Obama even more with white male voting blocks and NARAL with women. Obama is anything but change. He is as bad as GW only with a different wing. Its the bird facing left now, no unity. It is really hard to be a moderate Democrat. I think Obama has done more to divide the party than unify it. I "hope" he gets whats coming in the election, a big NObama.

I am too... (5.00 / 5) (#12)
by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:03:56 AM EST

and am wondering if he's trying to set up his own form of the K Street Project.


Which is astonishing and ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Iphie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:23:26 PM EST

if this was the basis for their decision. I sent them a letter asking them what percentage of their donor base is female, and if they had any idea what percentage of it supported Clinton. I told them that I thought it was highly likely that they just managed to piss off far more of their supporters in Hillary's camp than they will ever be able to make up in potential supporters in Obama's. I also asked them what the staffers thought of the way Nancy Keenan is destroying the NARAL brand.

I'm sure they just looove getting emails reminding them of the Alito, Roberts and Senator Short-Ride fiascoes. This is just one more to add to the list.


Smart of the ones pulling away (5.00 / 9) (#6)
by cawaltz on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:59:04 AM EST

I cannot believe they endorsed the guy voting "present" over the woman who has stood up time and time again for women. It was pretty flabbergasting and made me decide that if I had spare money for the women's movement(I have a daughter and consider it important that I teach her, her importnace) it would be better spent elsewhere.

Write a letter. (5.00 / 11) (#7)
by NYCDem11 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:59:43 AM EST

Yesterday I utilized a Talk Left link and wrote a note to the powers that be at NARAL America. I felt similarly offended when MoveOn.org decided to step into this primary and endorse one Dem candidate over another. These organizations don't yet comprehend how divisive these actions really are. Feeling thrown under the bus, my only way to show disagreement is to stop donating to and supporting these groups. (Though no matter how many times I unsubscribe to MoveOn.org's list, I keep getting their e-mails.)

: I Had the Same Feeling About MoveOn (5.00 / 7) (#21)
by creeper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:17:25 AM EST

It wasn't that they endorsed Obama, it was that their endorsement sounded like a swipe at the Clintons.
I was successful in removing myself from their mailing list. Keep trying.

It's bizzarre. It's bizzarre (5.00 / 9) (#14)
by rooge04 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:07:15 AM EST

that all these groups use the cover of "unity" to behave in the exact opposite way.

Wow! Oregon Is One (5.00 / 5) (#18)
by creeper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:10:51 AM EST

of those states whose local chapters are distancing themselves from the national one.

I wish Hillary would campaign more in Oregon. I think there are votes to be had there.

Me too (5.00 / 4) (#23)
by cawaltz on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:19:50 AM EST

I think she could make it alot closer. Margins matter.


HRC (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by txpolitico67 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:06:42 PM EST

could use this in some subtle, savvy way. I hope she crafts a message that would resonate with women in OR regarding family planning issues.

Whatta 'bone headed' move on NARAL's part.


Hillary on Oregon teevee (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by caseyOR on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:38:12 PM EST

Sen. Clinton will appear on a Townhall on Portland NBC affiliate KGW. The program will air tomorrow night. She is back campaigning here, as is Sen. Obama. Bill made a swing of small towns earlier this week. Folks loved it. Lots of those places hadn't seen campaigning since Bobby Kennedy came through the state in 1968.


She Has And Is! (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by CDN Ctzn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:30:15 PM EST

Both She, Chelsea, and Bill have been here in Oregon on several occasions recently. I heard Bill a few weeks ago at a smaller venue where I live and He was excellent. He spoke for an hour and a half. Even though he was already behind schedule with two more venues to address that evening, it didn't stop him from making a passionate, content filled, detailed with a concrete speech for his wife's candidacy. Most noticeable was a complete lack of any Obama Bashing.
Between the three family members, they have been in Oregon almost a dozen times recently. Bill just left here earlier this week. Obama has been here twice and spoke in Portland to a huge venue and charged an admission of $14.00 per head.
So tell me which candidate speaks more for Oregon interests?


: He charged (none / 0) (#72)
by cal1942 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:38:47 PM EST

Fourteen bucks a head?
The nerve and for that matter the complete Kool-Aid saturated fools who paid.

Looks Like Obama's Email Databases Are For Sale (5.00 / 5) (#19)
by Bob Boardman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:11:57 AM EST

for endorsements.

Did NARAL and Edwards get email lists in exchange for endorsement?

Is this the new politics?

: Politics (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by txpolitico67 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM EST

is a form of legalized prostitution.

The Obama (5.00 / 8) (#25)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:35:35 AM EST

campaign's motto:
Becoming more divisive every day. In their desperation to declare themselves victors they are making it a smaller and smaller pile of rubble that they will stand atop.

Nancy Keenan Is a Joke (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by HenryFTP on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:03:24 PM EST

The Joe Lieberman débâcle would have resulted in the sacking of the head of most national organizations if the national organization still cared about issue advocacy as opposed to self-perpetuation. That Nancy Keenan is still head should tell us everything we need to know about NARAL-America. And you can only imagine how tempting an offer of Obama's database would be to Keenan, who could easily provide unedited copy to Christopher Buckley for his next Washington satiric novel.

It is great to see that outside the Beltway people are not volunteering to be assimilated . . .

This is what I think (5.00 / 7) (#36)
by txpolitico67 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:04:22 PM EST

The Democrats, in their INFINITE wisdom, are following TO A TEE the republican presidential politic handbook:

Nominate an unknown
Make him out to be a "uniter"
Fragment every group within party
Call dissenters either unpatriotic or in this case a racist for not voting for said candidate.
Get in bed with media
Shove candidate down nation's throat.

Here's why it won't work, no matter how hard groups like NARAL try or someone like the crestfallen John Edwards. Democrats, real ones, will not buy into it. This blog/forum is a case in point.

Another reason why it won't work is because said candidate has more blistering info in his background that Bush (if it's possible).

I donated to both NARAL and NOW. NOW will be getting all my resources.

The response to my angry email.. (5.00 / 4) (#39)
by JustJennifer on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:06:51 PM EST

to my local NARAL chapter:

Thank you for writing. I want to make clear that it was NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC that has endorsed Senator Obama, and not our state affiliate. We are separate entities and had no part in the endorsement process. We at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington remain neutral in the race between Senators Clinton and Obama, and we strongly disagree with NARAL Pro-Choice America's decision to endorse at this time.

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are 100% pro-choice and have been vocal advocates for the right to choose. Both are co-sponsors of the Federal Freedom of Choice Act, which would put the protections of the Roe v. Wade into federal law.

Furthermore, I want to make sure you know there is no transfer of funds between our affiliate and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Thank you again for writing, and for your commitment to the right to choose.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXX
Executive Director

It seems to me (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:27:44 PM EST

that this endorsement was a play to win back some of the credibility with progressives that NARAL lost in the Chafee and Lieberman episodes.

It's like these organizations get so excited about the mailing lists and fundraising potential from aligning themselves with Obama that they completely forget that they'll be needlessly alienating other people along the way. I'd speculate that if you took a poll of all the people who have been on the front lines of the abortion-rights movement for the last 20-30 years, you'd find that a substantial majority support Hillary Clinton. Not the sort of constituency I'd choose to upset.

I think they should have waited (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by democrattotheend on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:49:55 PM EST

I'm an Obama supporter but I can understand why some of NARAL's donors are upset about this. I would expect them to endorse Obama once he is the nominee but they should have waited until after June 3, when everyone has voted, to make it clear that it's an endorsement for the general election, not the primary. I can see how it looks like an affront to Hillary Clinton, and I think they would have been better off waiting 3 weeks.

This is what Obama does to people (4.81 / 11) (#9)
by Jim J on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:02:33 AM EST

Divides them. Makes them betray their principles and like it, and ask for more.

Witness MoveOn's Stockholm Syndrome move, prostrating themselves at Obama's feet after he publicly cut them loose.

Now he is telling people who they can donate money to. No doubt they will all listen and do as they're told.

I will never again bash Bush Republicans for being blindly loyal morons. The Obama Nation makes the most fanatic Bush supporter look like Tom Paine.

It's the wavin' of the green! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:03:27 AM EST

It's that, but it's more than that (5.00 / 6) (#17)
by Jim J on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:09:20 AM EST

Obama makes people betray themselves in exchange for little more than a pat on the back. Or a "sweetie," if you will.

I'm reminded of how easily the press swooned for Bush because he gave them all fraternity nicknames. People really do sell themselves short, remarkably so.

It's all been a truly disgusting look at the weakness of human nature and the perils of democracy. Personally, I'm more and more in favor of bringing back the monarchy.


: Who Rules (5.00 / 7) (#22)
by Athena on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:18:13 AM EST

Did you mean matriarchy :)? If so, I agree.

: We're already a little too close to monarchy (5.00 / 4) (#29)
by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:39:32 AM EST

for my comfort level.
Lord God King Bush has gotten away with things that Richard Nixon could never have imagined in his fevered, drunken dreams. Treason, war crimes, destroying the Constitution, invading and occupying two nations that didn't attack us...
What we need to do is "clean house" in our own party. I hadn't realized until this year just how rotted the fish's head has become.
More and better Democrats...and let's start with our Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton!

evidently the liberal (5.00 / 6) (#15)
by cawaltz on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:07:23 AM EST

base has its own percentage of people who drink from the kool aid jar. I wonder if our percent is paralell to the 29% the other sie has.


: That would be hard to measure (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by inclusiveheart on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:02:09 PM EST

I think because liberals aren't nearly as monolithic in their thinking as conservatives are. Also, you have to account for the fact that Obama has attracted some support from the conservative side and those folks based on my reading of their comments are sort of kool-aid drinkers no matter what they are talking about.

Blind (5.00 / 4) (#16)
by Athena on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:08:18 AM EST

Yes, we see a shocking Obama cultism take over the nomination process in the Dem party.

Follow the leader is dangerous, left or right.


: Funny! (none / 0) (#67)
by CDN Ctzn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:34:08 PM EST

I was one of those who always thought the Right would be the ones who would lead us into Fascism. Now it's looking more and more like Obama and his Obamaphiles could do the job!

This Is What Obama Has Wrought (none / 0) (#41)
by JoeCHI on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:09:00 PM EST

These losers deserve each other.

Purely amateur speculation... (none / 0) (#44)
by huzzlewhat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:20:51 PM EST

I half wonder if the sudden endorsements by NARAL and Edwards -- in contradiction of the overall neutrality of the organization and Edwards' publicly stated determination to remain neutral -- is part of a larger play. Might there might be more to both of them, especially in light of Dean's comments about electability being the dominant question? A lot of people are talking about the possibility of party leaders convincing Edwards to pick a side, and I wonder if this may have been a concerted effort to to see if key endorsements can prop Obama up among the demographics where he's most vulnerable in the GE. If the two endorsements increase his support among women and white working class voters respectively in the upcoming Kentucky primary (as compared to the dire West Virginia results), then they have their answer, and Obama is electable. If the endorsements don't prop him up among those voters, he may be un-proppable, and Clinton's argument seems more weighty.

Eh (5.00 / 0) (#49)
by nell on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:47:49 PM EST

I almost want to believe that because then it means the DNC may be waking up from its hazy fog and can finally start to understand that Obama is unelectable in the fall. But, I don't think so. NARAL is not the group you would use to test this out - I am betting no other group would be willing to get on board with this given the strong responses that came from groups like Emily's List. But in any case, I don't think even the fools at the DNC are dumb enough to think the endorsement of NARAL matters. As for Edwards, I cannot explain this one - I have a hard time believing he would put his credibility on the line to do the DNC a favor, even if it did get him a large listserv. It is unclear whether it was sudden or not - Edwards seemed to go out of his way to say there would be no endorsement this weekend, even taking the initiative to clarify he said he voted for "'em" not "him," so it seems like the endorsement is sudden. But then from talking to web people, it seems sending out a huge mailing like the fundraising email involving hundreds of thousands of new addresses would take advance work, so he had to have gotten it earlier...


Yeah, I got my e-mail. (5.00 / 3) (#50)
by BarnBabe on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:58:28 PM EST

Thanked him for his good work and intentions but disagreed with his endorsement and was disappointed. Wished him well and love to Elizabeth and then afterwards, unsubscribed. Now, that means, no more money for NARAL, Move On, the DNC and none to Obama but he does not need my denaro. So this year, only Hillary is receiving. And we have to pay down her debt by when?


August (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by cawaltz on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:20:04 PM EST

I think it needs to be paid down by August.


OK, I will set some aside for her (5.00 / 3) (#54)
by BarnBabe on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:41:42 PM EST

To me, and it did not start out as this, she symbolizes every woman's struggle in this world. She is out there telling us never to give up and run from difficult situations. You might not win all the battles, but you have to continue to try your best. And she shows there is no weakness in being a woman. I happen to think she is the brightest, most experienced, and would make the best Democratic President we could ask for. She did not quit at one state, or 10 states, she is running the whole gambit and I am very proud of her. The Susan B Anthony of the 00's.


: Yes (5.00 / 3) (#59)
by nell on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:47:41 PM EST

This election did NOT start out this way for me, I honestly thought women were much further along than we are. I supported Barack Obama initially, but then I heard both candidates speak very early on, and I realized she was far and away the better candidate on policy - she actually knows what she is talking about, and that is how she won me over. Her being a woman was a plus, I suppose, just as Barack's ability to identify with me as a minority was a plus, but neither of these were ever the deciding factor.
Now she represents my struggle, when a man belittles her, my mind flips right back to everytime my accomplishments have been belittled or dismissed in a way that no man's would ever be. She, and her supporters, have been so disrespected and taken for granted this election.
She is my feminist hero, win, lose, or draw.
I will stand with her until the last dog dies.

What email did you get? (none / 0) (#52)
by eric on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:24:01 PM EST

I got an email from Edwards yesterday, but it was about some scholarship program in NC, nothing about the election.


: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by nell on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:44:36 PM EST

that is the email everyone got. I was never on his mailing list. I am on Hillary's list and the DNC's list. I was at one point many months ago on Barack's list, but I unsubscribed when I made my choice. So I am not sure whether I got the email because I am still on Barack's listserv, even though I don't get the emails anymore, or if there was collusion with the DNC, which would be really unethical, in my view.

: Yep, he wanted money for the fund (5.00 / 2) (#58)
by BarnBabe on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:46:57 PM EST

He might have gotten some, as I had given to his campaign, but because of the timing, I was suspicious that the two had something in common. I told him next year maybe. I am annoyed with him right now even if he did not have his usual ear to ear grin. If he held out this long, he could have held out longer. I feel he was just sent in by the troops that be. I was on his list as a supporter for his campaign for President. He used that to ask me for funds for his cause. I am off a few lists now.

Waxman (none / 0) (#53)
by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:39:41 PM EST

endorsed Obama today

Boo. Hiss.

: Looks like they are finalizing forcing (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:51:54 PM EST

Obama on us and disregarding the voters and Clinton.
Bad move.

Someone on another board (none / 0) (#55)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:42:36 PM EST

said that the fact that National NARAL and State NARAL's are divided about the endorsement is proof that Hillary is divisive.

Can she ever win? Ever?

: It shouldn't though (none / 0) (#61)
by BarnBabe on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:10:12 PM EST

NARAL represents us with a woman's issue. It does not represent us for endorsing a President. Move On was the same thing. Even Donna B from the DNC should not be out there rooting for BHO. She is either a CNN analysis, cough cough, or a DNC board member. After the convention when one candidate emerges, then the DNC should be full speed ahead. They will not get any donations from me because I believe they should have been out there representing all our candidates with the media fairly. I think they should have been contacting Morning Joe about the WB Month and say you are insulting all women. And they managed to screw up Florida and Michigan nicely.

: ROFL (none / 0) (#64)
by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:03:38 PM EST

That one actually made me laugh. I can't help it.

NARAL gets my support, but hears my two cents too (none / 0) (#65)
by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:06:27 PM EST

Until holier than moi blowards affirmatively protect women's rights to unimpeded modern health practices, including reproduction related, NARAL will get my support BEFORE political parties or candidates for office.

That's it, final, no ifs ands or buts.

That doesn't mean I won't (and don't) criticize the organization as a whole, or don't have strings attached to my unflagging lifetime support.

And I hate the disproportionate amount of NARAL Derangement Syndrome unleashed by Dem supporters not because they're necessarily against abortion rights, but because they transfer ALL FRUSTRATION with the political process onto NARAL.

The "joke" is on Dems and "pro" life types from all sides of the aisle: if you want health care, support NARAL and reproductive rights groups.

Until those are shored up, no one's seein' nuthin.