Received within the hour, a “Very Important Message from Karen Cooper ” (Exec. Dir., NARAL Pro-Choice Washington) re this morning’s NARAL endorsement of Barack Obama:
… None of us here, myself included, knew about it until a phone call this morning from D.C., and at that point it was a done deal. To be clear, we at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington remain neutral in the race … We strongly disagree with NARAL Pro-Choice America’s decision to endorse at this time.
… To endorse Obama at this point in the race is an unconscionable slap in the face to Senator Hillary Clinton.
Furthermore, I want to make sure you know there is no transfer of funds between our affiliate and NARAL Pro-Choice America. We are separate entities.
… our Board of Directors is planning a meeting to discuss our affiliate’s next steps.
Closed with a link to NARAL Pro-Choice Washington’s press release on the subject.
Kudos, Karen! Any other blindsided affiliate sightings out there?
[UPDATES] Likewise New York … Missouri … Pennsylvania … others unofficially sound insulted-not-consulted, like Texas … while Oregon issues a firm statement of neutrality.
Filed under: Barack Obama, Presidential Election 2008 |
The Confluence 
RonK,
I heard the NY office said the same thing, and also said they support Hillary and would continue to do so. I’ll see if I can find the link.
I saw one from Texas. Can’t remember where though. Talkleft?
Here’s the link to the story on NY NARAL. Maybe you could add it to your post?
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/05/naral-prochoice-ny-doesnt-foll.html
This is an interesting situation. It sounds like a revolt. Another poorly executed and short-sighted decision. I mean if every local NARAL group is disowning the endorsment and praising Hillary, that might actually make it to the news. ??
Here’s one from TaylorMarsh’s page:
Every progressive organization is pissing away their credibility in this race. I’ve been saying this over and over, but SEIU is absurd. They wanted to launch a $75 million campaign for universal health care but endorsed the candidate who took UHC off the table. What are they thinking? This is why unions are on decline.
Just another piece of evidence that this election is rigged.
Mark Ambinder on NARAL PAC members who are infuriated at the leadership.
RD, is it possible that NARAL responded to threats? What about Edwards? When Edwards dropped out of the race, there were rumors that he had been basically told (in so many words) “you’ll never work in this town again” if you don’t get out of the way. Now suddenly he appears with an Obama endorsement after he just said over the weekend on Face the Nation and Larry King that he wasn’t going to endorse.
No thread on the Edwards endorsement. Oh well.
Here’s an exercise for all ya’ll. Go over Obama’s prominent endorsements (Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson, etc.) and find me references to where they give specific examples of Obama bringing change or demonstrating leadership. The endorsements are tepid and seem almost forced. That’s a little strange.
gq,
What are they going to say? Obama hasn’t done anything, he doesn’t say what he believes in. I can’t believe Edwards actually said that Obama joins him in fighting poverty. That’s a laugh and a half.
Wow, you should see the angry comments on that NARAL blog! And it took so long to open, I thought the site might be down. This could blow up in BO and the DNC’s faces.
Found Texas at NoMoreApples
Interesting. This actually follows up on the third party question I meant to answer in thread below.
Right now the Democratic leadership is foisting Obama on us in a manner similar to National NARAL. But voters, like those local affiliates, are saying no. This will likely happen again in the fall.
What is the structural interplay between affiliates and NARAL? If it’s like the Democratic Clubs, the affiliates operate under NARAL’s tight control in terms of endorsements and funds. I suspect, however, it’s a looser confederation. If that’s the case then those local affiliates will continue to endorse and support Hillary in the primary up to HER withdrawal or nomination. (Not unlike us.)
After the primary or GE there will probably be serious ass-kicking at NARAL (though it’s been coming for awhile). For us it must wait until after the GE.
In December 2008, we will face the following choices:
1. Do we want to rescue rotting corpse of Dem party suffering from yet one more shell shacking? We’ll call it Dem party but it must change so much to survive it will be like starting a new third party.
2. Did Precious pull it out (e.g. press turns on McCain) and we must stay away from Democratic party altogether (not even by choice)? Then will we form a third party by bonding with Libertarian and Moderate Republicans tossed out by base incensed over McCain loss?
3. Do we float away now depending on our stances on political questions (e.g. some to Nader/Gonzalez (Green), Barr (Libertarians), or McCain (Moderate Repubicans) and then regroup after GE?
BB: Anything’s possible but given Nancy Keenan’s history of doing stuff like this, I would guess she didn’t need a whole lot of arm twisting. She seems to be very willing to compromise her principles in order to fill the coffers.
I can’t believe Edwards actually said that Obama joins him in fighting poverty. That’s a laugh and a half.
I would believe it if Obama decided to join Edwards in fighting poor people, because that’s the only kind of class war the big zero would be willing to fight.
It’s worth reading the statement from IL NOW in the No More Apples link above. Harsh words for Sen. Obama.
RD: I know. I was done with NARAL in 2006. And I used to donate to them.
What I don’t get is how this got coordinated with Edwards–and why did Edwards come out over the weekend and say he wouldn’t endorse, then two days late he does this? It’s stinks. The big boyz are scared. I think we should take this as a positive for Hillary. If Ted Kennedy’s endorsement couldn’t win MA, I don’t see how Edwards’ endorsement means anything except a lot of news coverage for a day.
Cdalygo,
Count me out of any coalition involving libertarians. The libertarian-left are the ones powering Obama. That’s a deal breaker for me.
Hey GQ
Fair enough — I was just sketching out possibilities.
But seeing the NARAL folks react makes me think we can still pull it out with Hillary at helm. Though press will never report story. Sigh.
If Hillary wins nomination – and take GE (as she will) – then I will consider returning to party. But only if she and other sane members of Democratic leadership commit to letting us clear it out.
This may not be popular, but the religious left is a growing power that cares most about social justice. Its a natural group to work with the working class. Also good to collaborate on women’s equality. Its a more natural ally for African Americans and Hispanics than the “creative class”. Secular humanist morality overlaps significantly with the morality of the religios left; they just have different concepts of what “G-d” is.
I’ll take a Quaker over a libertarian any day :o)
Jane Hamsher is pretty ambivalent about NARAL, about Hillary, and about Obama as well. One of the reasons I left FireDogLake as a front=pager was that Jane thought I was an Obama supporter.
FireDogLake has a do-not-endorse-or-destroy policy during the Dem primaries but promises to support whoever the Dem nominee is… A noble position, but doesn’t always work out that way…
My take: Jane is a closet, sub-rosa Hillary supporter…
Does NARAL, John Edwards (and perhaps Al Gore) not understand that the more they rush to knock Clinton out, the more resentful Clinton’s base becomes?
gqm — Ed who? 😉
Cdalygo: What is the structural interplay between affiliates and NARAL? If it’s like the Democratic Clubs, the affiliates operate under NARAL’s tight control in terms of endorsements and funds.
The national issues endorsements for federal-level races, the affiliates for state-level. It’s really that simple.
The affiliates don’t get much from the national in terms of resources (at least my state affiliate doesn’t).
I took a break and tuned in Dan Abrams. He had Craig Crawford who had to keep reminding the panel to not just consider the black vote defection should it be Hillary but to also consider the female voters for her because he sees a backlash coming. He said that 17 million women are mad a the treatment she has been getting and it would not surprise him to see a big walkout at the convention. He said that there has been too much emphasis put on the possible loss of the black voter and that Obama should really not expect all this young college kids to get out there for him in November because they do not have a history of follow through. He is about the first person I have seen make that point although I have not had the cable on for the past 10 days.
Thanks, hlr. That sounds like Democratic party and its various clubs. Everything is tightly controlled beyond the most local of elections.
If we end up with Republicans we will have to strengthen states rights anyway. I guess we might as well start with our own organizations. The only thing we lose would be access to DC but who cares at this point.
OK now that is a piece of exciting news….a female walkout of the convention….this must happen….how to coordinate?
Yes, let’s get in touch with Crawford and tell him we are ready to walk.
Melanie: We can do that. I e-mailed him once sometime in February because he was defending her to KO and I told him I appreciated that. He e-mailed back, thanking me. So he does respond. His blog is always chock full each day. Gets over 200 hits for each posting but I used his direct e-mail address which I think is right there on the blog itself.
Obama has been on record saying that the states should decide & is in favor of minors getting consent for an abortion. THIS IS OUT OF THE QUESTION.
Many minors who become pregnant live in abusive homes and/or were abused/molested by someone close in the family!
Obama, SWEETIE, you are not getting THIS WOMAN’S vote.
I called NARAL today and gave them a piece o’ my mind, as my aunt gertrude used to say.
My email to Edwards tonight:
I am outraged that you would abandon the principles you pretend to espouse by endorsing Obama who shows no evidence of actively supporting health care, workers rights, democracy, or women’s issues. You show your position to be that of a self-promoting phony.
I am female, 49, and will not consent to being relegated to irrelevant, insulted, and otherwise placed in a class of less than human. Know that I will not vote for Obama, or you, and if abortion and workers rights are the sacrifice, that is the only choice YOU have presented me with.
Pat Johnson, do you have the email address? I can’t find the blog.
@Melanie: I just sent him an e-mail.
My e-mail to Craig Crawford:
Hi Craig. I caught you tonight on Dan Abrams and wanted to let you know I appreciate the fact that you are one of the few commentators who does not indulge in the constant Hillary bashing. It is so offensive that I have stopped watching most cable newscasts as of late.
I am sure you are aware of various blogs out there who support Hillary and at the same time you would agree that the anger among the women voters is real. It is incomprehensible to us that we are referred to as racists because we choose to support a more qualified and experienced candidate. Tonight you attempted to explain that it is not only the black voter defection that may become a problem but also the millions of Hillary supporters who could possibly choose to only vote the downticket on election day or stay home should he be the candidate.
I am here to tell you that this is all very true. There is a great deal of anger out there with regard to the sexism that Hillary Clinton has had to endure which is widely felt by her supporters, male and female.
Not once has Sen. Obama addressed this issue. For someone running as the “transcendent” candidate he has failed the leadership test by his silence. Note how quickly the media seizes upon even the slightest reference to perceived racism but completely overlook the damage that sexism brings. It is a loaded symbol.
As a good reporter who offers incite into many facets of politics, I just would like to see the media play fair. You are one of those who make that attempt. It is my hope that someone from the media refers to the possibility that losing a majority of women voters who do not see an even playing field for their candidate could lead to some serious defections from the Democratic Party and could wound them in November because as of today a great majority are feeling exactly as I do .
Craig, thank you for taking the time to read this. Your evenhandedness has been a breath of fresh air during this divisive primary season.
Melanie: CCrawford@cq.com
Ok, thanks, Pat. I wrote him.
Oh, Joanie — That’s a great letter. If you have Elizabeth’s email, you should send a copy to her.
I really don’t think it will matter too much though, do you?
Joanie: Your letter truly touched me. You worked and sacrificed for someone who betrayed your ideals. He can’t get much lower than that. The one bright thing he has going for him is Elizabeth. Truly the one with guts. If she ever chooses to run she we would all have her back. Just like Hillary. They hear us.
I should have said that I don’t think Edward’s endorsement will matter to much to the election.
(sigh)
Not that your letter won’t matter.
katiebird: I will contact Edwards as well. I did not see the endorsement but I gather that when Hillary’s name was mentioned the teenagers booed. They both stood there laughing and grinning. What boors.
Pat, I didn’t see it. I heard about the booing. And I’ve seen Obama smirk through such outbursts. But I don’t want to picture Edwards while it was going on. It’s too sad.
katiebird: I know what you are saying since you were an early booster for him. I was always a Hillary fan. It is quite disappointing when people we like and admire are not what they appear to be. But as Scarlet once said: “tomorrow is another day”.
Pat, it’s not THAT much of a surprise. I have a slight allergy to male lawyers (from working 8 years in a University Law Library) and I never liked that all much. It was totally an issues thing.
My Hillary commitment is much different
In rereading the postings I came up with an idea to rid us of some of the anger we are feeling. How about a contest to give Obama the worst names we can think of? We can use Joanie’s “fuck head” as a start.
bostonboomer, thanks for the heads up. I went over to the NARAL site to read the comments and it did me a lot of good. Ninety five percent of emailers are furious with NARAL and vowing to never give another penny.
Rather than our behaving in the rude manner of many Obama supporters on the “internets,” it behooves us to write letters to editors and to our representative and to Nancy Pelosi and tell them that we are mad as hell and won’t take it anymore.
CNN and MSNBC/NBC are supposed to make money by holding viewers to the next ad. If we aren’t watching, they don’t get the “tick” for the revenue. Let them know, and let their sponsors know (sponsors of such shows as those “hosted” by Chris Matthews’s (who is so out-of-touch that he thinks he has a chance to be a Senator from Pa.) and Keith Obamaman.
It is best to get to work and to get even. Show that women, no less than blacks, have power and refuse to be treated as a voting bloc that doesn’t count and can be insulted with impunity. Women can be demeaned, and the Clintons portrayed falsely as racists by the Obama camp and the Democratic “leadership” is silent.
Hillary is the most qualified of all three candidates, and she is the one who can bring about real change, and not just hopefully–she will do it!
P.S. The quality of Clinton supporters is leagues about those who represent Obama on many Web sites. Let’s not be dragged down to their level. Get even by doing what it takes to help Hillary win!
I seem to remember Elizabeth Edwards’d said a while ago “it may even be possible that John and I endorse different candidates” – or something to that effect.
Elizabeth, please, don’t break our hearts. Fight for the only presidential candidate now supporting universal heathcare. The only person brave, smart and ‘hopeful’ enough to want to truly bring change – Hillary Clinton!
Can someone who has cable tell me what companies advertise on Hardball and Countdown? Are the ads consistent, or are they local ads? I don’t want to buy products that pay for this biased reporting that is so dismissive of women.
Please forgive the conspiratorial tone of this post. However given all of the back-stabbing, up-is-down, HRC’s wins are losses, CYA aspects of this primary, I believe anything is possible when it comes to promoting Obama while undermining HRC.
Strange aspect re Keenan, Lieberman, Obama. Does Keenan have any close ties to Lieberman? Is it just coincidence she endorsed both against the grain and avoided consultation of members and local groups?
I have wondered what happened to the Lieberman, Obama special relationship. I see Obama supporters on blogs knocking Lieberman and trying to somehow assign him to HRC. Mindless and ignorant of the closeness of Obama/Lieberman ties.
Is there still some backdoor, out of view, symbiotic relationship going on?
I know Lieberman has endorsed McCain, but does he actually support and work behind the scenes for Obama?
Obama Lieberman links: Old news but still worth a look. What changed between them, or did anything chage at all?
from March 31, 2006 : http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman?mode=PF
from Jan. 2, 2008: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011631.php
Personally, I like Elizabeth better than John Edwards. Her endorsement means more. I’m not a fan of John Edwards.
Pat Johnson, on May 14th, 2008 at 11:11 pm Said:
“I took a break and tuned in Dan Abrams. He had Craig Crawford who had to keep reminding the panel to not just consider the black vote defection should it be Hillary but to also consider the female voters for her because he sees a backlash coming. He said that 17 million women are mad a the treatment she has been getting and it would not surprise him to see a big walkout at the convention. He said that there has been too much emphasis put on the possible loss of the black voter and that Obama should really not expect all this young college kids to get out there for him in November because they do not have a history of follow through. He is about the first person I have seen make that point although I have not had the cable on for the past 10 days.”
Wow, that’s exactly how I feel.
I quit having any use for NARAL when they endorsed Lieberman. That they would stab the only woman who has ever had a chance to win the highest office in the land in the back does not surprise me. Women do not have a really good record at supporting other women. Look at the women in the media that gleefully attack Hillary Clinton every damn day.
At least you can respect the AA voters that support an AA candidate at 90%. It cannot be because 90% of AA agree with his politics because 90% of people don’t agree about anything. I believe it is identity support and see nothing wrong with that. Their vote and their right to cast it how they choose. Women, at least some women, seem to resent another woman in a strong leadership position more than many men do. Not a pleasant fact. A rather dismal and depressing fact but it’s there.
I came here this morning because I am down and depressed and wondering how to get through another day with all the hits that keep coming for the only candidate that I believe will honestly do the very best she can for this country. How she stands up to the constant onslaught is beyond me. She is truly a remarkable woman with remarkable strength.
I feel a little better now because so many of you are not willing, like our candidate, to back off, back down, and give in and give up. I’m not either. But I am so damn tired of losing. And the men of the Democratic Party, with the exception of Hillary’s spouse are good at nothing but losing. I refuse to endorse that.
Thanks for cheering me up a little . My chin was resting firmly on the floor this morning and has now risen to at least knee height.
Too passive in my view they should endorse Hillary, no drama just endorse. I like many of you have been busy having a career, going to school raising a family and voting staying informed but more so after 2000, but why do we have and support women groups PAC’s that have a political wedgies at it’s core, IMO designed solely to divide women power in the electorate that is old politics.
CB, I just think that we have to blow off steam every now and then. I wrote my “official” letter with a different tone, but my comment reveals that I feel safe enough here to state crudely how betrayed I feel. Every now and then we need that. We are all getting weary from holding our heads up and taking the high road in the face of these assaults on our intelligence and spirit.
That said, I agree that we should also remember the dignity and grace Hillary has shown in the face of this, and direct our anger properly at working hard toward a VERY JUST victory. It is not too late.
For those who did not see John Edwards speak:
1) he seemed to praise Hillary and his ideas and then say that’s why I’m supporting BO. Other than saying we need change, I didn’t catch anything specifically good about BO.
2) When he talked about Hillary and the boos started – I didn’t notice BO however, JE did not look even remotely amused. I also think it was more than just teenagers doing.
He said he was doing this in the name of unity, I’m sad that he picked the pony – but I don’t know… it seemed like he was using the endorsement to promote his agenda.
Before you loose all hope that JE is a good guy, imagine wanting to help poor people and have healthcare – saving BO’s butt might seem like the way to have influence in the message and administration.
My opinion of John Edwards did take a dip but I didn’t expect a whole lot different from a politician. I wish he had been classy enough to wait til the voting was over.
I sincerely hope that the rumors aren’t true and that he’s looking for the VP spot on Obama’s ticket. If that’s so then my opinion will do more than dip, it will plummet.
The “big” exciting endorsement was only meant to take over the news cycle long enough to overshadow the asswhooping Obama took in WV.
Unless Democrats want to guarantee the next President of the United States is a Republican, you better read all of this. As the CNN News had repeated ignored what the DNCC, GOPC, Sen. Clinton, Sen. McCain & Sen. Obama know that the Senate Select Committee on Ethic received a legal brief in April 2008, where Sen. Obama has been charged with violation of the Senate’s Code of Ethics.
As it not a frivolous charge, the Senate Select Committee of Ethics is conduction their investigation. Because of red tape, and time, if the Democrats want the next President of the United States to be a Democrat, time must be given for their investigation to conclude. Which means those pledged delegate for Sen. Obama need to hear from those Democrats in their district, and States, otherwise what will happen will be Sen. Obama will be selected as the Democratic candidate, then as the evidence against Sen. Obama, (see below), is so overwhelming, there will be no choice, but for Senate to censure Sen. Obama for unmoral conduct for befriending a domestic terrorist. Hey you better read on, because as you read, you will see that while you may have already voted for Sen. Obama in your primary election, you may see that the only way the next President of the United States, will be a Democratic, is if Sen. Clinton is given the time to fight on to the Democrat Convention. There is always the slim chance Sen. Obama will not be censored, but there no want to know, unless the Senate Select Committee of Ethic have the time to complete their investigation. So call your pledge delegates and tell then that time is needed, that those delegates should announce that they will wait until the Democratic Convention to choose who they vote for. Time, is needed. Other wise you will guarantee a Republican as the next President of the United States. As do you really think a lot of those who previously voted for Sen. Obama, will vote for him in the General election when he has been censored for his friendship to a domestic terrorist?
The FBI classifies that the act of setting a bomb is a terrorist act. Do you know what both Lee Harvey Oswald and William Ayers have in comment, both are domestic terrorist and neither was convicted of their crime. Oswald was killed after he assassinated JFK, and Ayers admitted that he got off on a technically, even though he set many bombs and should of set more bombs. As Oswald only committed one act of terrorism, and Ayers have committed more acts of terrorist, William Ayers is technically a worst domestic terrorist than Lee Harvey Oswald was.
There is a moral cause in the Senate Code of Ethics, that Sen. J. William Fulbright stated in the U.S. Senate in the early 1950s, that when a Senator’s gives the “implied behavior of The Moral Deterioration of American Democracy”, that that is a violate the Senate Code of Ethics.
And to think that Sen. Obama compared his friendship to William Ayers, (domestic terrorist), to his friendship with Sen. Coburn. (A highly respected Republic Senator).
To all Democrats, unless you call your delegates and tell them that time is needed, and let the Democratic Convention decide then who the Democratic Candidate is, you will be guarantee the next President of the United States to be a Republican.