If those other groups want unity so much, why don't they all endorse Obama as well? Calls for unity are almost always calls for unity... behind my cause/candidate/idea.

"Other groups, such as the National Women's Political Caucus, have chastised NARAL's endorsement because they 'believe that this announcement at this time will divide the choice community at a time when we need to stand united.'"

Being united doesn't mean agreeing on everything or holding your opinions until it's convenient to say your peace. Rather, it means being aware of differences but standing together anyway in the name of a cause that's bigger than anything else and, as far as I'm concerned, the pro-choice movement is bigger and more important than Clinton or Obama.

There does need to be unity. Unity in order to elect THE pro-choice candidate over the anti-choice McCain. Obama will be the nominee.

This is rational. It is smart. NARAL made the right choice.

I hope there will be friendliness here, despite the strong feelings. Over at NARAL's blog, there is a lot of, ahem, bitterness: http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2008/05/naral-prochoice-6.html

"there is a lot of, ahem, bitterness: "

Thank you for reminding us women here that when we display displeasure at something we are bitter.

Did you even read what DBR posted before your arbitrary and non sequitur response, dedf? A lot of the responses posted there are bitter, both men and women. That's all DBR said, not that the commenters were bitter, much less all women.

I don't think all the groups need to agree about which candidate to endorse, but they need to realize that simply attacking other organizations with the same goals for their political alignments will prove detrimental to the pro-choice movement as a whole. DBR is right, if it's the movement people are fighting for, they need to back the candidate who will be in a position to support it. It's strategic.
As far as timing? I think in light of Edwards' endorsement, timing isn't terrible. It shouldn't be a cause for division among pro-choice activists, because it isn't detracting from anyone's pro-choice platform, only their personal preference (in the case of Emily's List, to support the female pro-choice candidate over the male pro-choice candidate - a position I feel is only perpetuating gendered decision-making).
The endorsement was needed, support for the inevitable Democratic candidate was needed from the mainstay of abortion rights groups (even if it is, as Rachel Maddow says, an "emotional loss" for her).

Already, people? Please, let's play nice and have a productive conversation here.

I've already posted about this over at my blog, but I'd like to reiterate that the only ones starting a fight are those who are responding to the endorsement like it's some kind of betrayal. It's not. NARAL is a pro-choice organization and they endorsed a pro-choice candidate. It's not like they're backing McCain. Shooting out angry press releases doesn't help anything, most of all not unity. I wasn't pleased when NOW endorsed Clinton. I also didn't ever accuse them of dividing a movement or imply that they were supporting a candidate who was not pro-choice. I don't think that attacking those on our side is in any way a good idea (and yes, the same goes for Obama supporters talking to Clinton supporters). We all have our different opinions on the election. If having those differing opinions is divisive, then we've been divided for over six months now.

I think we heard the "betrayal" theme before when Kennedy endorsed Obama. It came across badly then and even worse now. Malcolm should know better.

If the media plays it as a cat fight I blame EMILY's List not NARAL. There are many good reasons NARAL could have chosen this moment to endorse, as you will read elsewhere in this tread. I can think of no good reason for EMILY's list to attack NARAL for doing it, especially now. Baring being hit by a meteor, Obama will be the pro-choice Democratic nominee, perhaps in less than a week. There is no upside to making it a public feud now.

I think the endorsement reads as weak. Basically it says, we think he's going to win the nomination, so we pick him! 'Cause he's gonna win!

I believe that Hillary Clinton stands much, much stronger on issues of choice, and I am dismayed by NARAL's endorsement of Obama at this time. I have serious concerns about how he has phrased his opinions on choice and birth control.

NARAL's primary and only concern should be endorsing the candidate that best backs their stands - Not the candidate they feel confident will win the nomination.

I think they're trying to play kingmaker, and it's not their place to do that. It's their place to defend my reproductive rights.

I think it's a responsible move. One of the reasons reported for the endorsement is to bridge the gap which has widened between older, affluent white female pro-choice activists and the African-American community. The endorsement sends the message that groups like NARAL will not hold out to the very end for Clinton, even in the face of delegate reality, and risk the black community taking away the wrong message.

I agree with Cara -- I was disappointed with NOW when they endorsed Clinton seconds after she entered the race. But I am equally disappointed with NARAL for throwing their support to Obama just two weeks before the end of the primary season. Surely the fact that they hadn't already endorsed the stronger pro-choice candidate was signal enough?

And now to disagree with Cara as well: if NARAL had consulted with its membership or state organizations, then perhaps there would be a lot fewer angry emails. But state NARALs, as well as many national pro-choice organizations, that have deliberately stayed out of this fight have been drawn into it, whether they like it or not. That seems imperious and decidedly un-progressive.

The point can not be made enough that we have two excellent candidates for women. For that reason, I think it would serve us better not to get into their fight, but to focus on the larger one, John McCain.

Hillary is stronger than Obama on issues of choice, but she isn't going to be the nominee, so it's time to move on. Obama is by far the stronger candidate on choice than McCain.

We heard the betrayal argument before when Kennedy and Richardson endorsed Obama. Thing is, we don't owe Hillary anything, and neither do they. She and Obama are our public servants, not the other way around.

This is one NARAL donor who will not be donating any less now that Obama is their endorsee.

On the "bitterness" remark way up above. I was just trying to be cute in saying that the comments over at the other site were angry/upset/over-the-top. It was cute in light of Obama's remark a few weeks back. I was making fun at the expense, in part, of my favored candidate, Obama.

And take a look at the blog and you'll have to admit some of the outrageous comments can be indeed construed as "bitter"...
http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2008/05/naral-prochoice-6.html

I'm personally for Obama. But, given Clinton's past record on women's rights and reproductive issues, which I think has been considerably more *vocal* and open and unabashed than Obama's, I get the feeling that Clinton, as a woman, would give women's issues top priority if she was elected. I fear this will not happen if Obama is elected. Candidates can have great past voting records and good official stances on issues and what have you, but this doesn't mean they're going to take initiative. And what women could use right now is initiative. I'm not convinced Obama is going to provide the special attention and initiative to women's issues that Clinton might have. I feel like things may continue to sit on the back burner, even while people talk about how much they support them.

What is the point of endorsing the inevitable Democratic nominee at this point? There is a very slim chance Clinton is going to be the nominee; why did NARAL have to endorse either of them?

I think people need to focus more on the fact that we need to beat the very anti-choice McCain. We cannot let a asshat like him into the oval office or we might as well give up all the rights we have been fighting for. As long as pro-choice wins it doesn't matter which candidate it is. And it's sexist to be against Obama just because hes a man. His points are just as valid as hers. They are both very capable pro-choice defenders.

Anyway, would it really have been that difficult for NARAL to just wait on the endorsement? What's the rush? What would the loss have been to wait until Hillary conceded the race to endorse Obama?

I'm just somewhat annoyed at the rushing. People on all sides have been calling for Clinton to drop out of the race for *months*, even long before it was clear she wasn't getting the votes, and it just makes me uncomfortable. The reason we have a representative republic ("democracy") is so that it can WORK. I think people need to settle down and let it work.

The rush is McCain's headstart and the increasingly urgent need to unify the Democratic party.

Whether or not these concerns are such that we should encourage Clinton to drop out is, of course, a matter of opinion. For what it's worth, though, nobody is forcing Clinton to leave. They're just getting behind Obama a little early than if they'd waited until they were obligated to, which to me would send a weaker message.

little earlier*

as someone who works at another rep. justice org, we've already had someone pull away their support even though we aren't naral.

i don't see this as a betrayal to feminism. we have to recognize the system for what it is and in order to win in this system we have to be strategic and support the ones who are in power and stuff. basically, i think we need to start up our cr circles again and talk about the intersections in our identities.

what if hillary had been a pro-choice republican???

"Clinton and Obama both have phenomenal records on this issue."

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. At a speech in front of a pro-choice crowd, Clinton called abortion a ""a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women...There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

Although there are a number of pro-choice women who feel this way, I'd hardly call it strong support for a woman's right to choose.

I'll admit that I'm not as well versed on Obama's record, and I'm by no means a staunch supporter of his, either. However, we need to be honest with ourselves about the candidates.

Naral is an actual civil rights group and Emily's list is social club. While Naral actually backs issues, EMiLY supports candidates only if they fit a certain profile. Check out the featured candidates for a fat dose of bigotry. http://feministing.com/movabletype/mt-comments.cgi

I wanted to add that I am very sad at the amount of people who are withdrawing their support of NARAL just because of this. That is detrimental to everything we stand for and I am ashamed that anyone would think of doing it just because they support the other 100% pro-choice candidate. If Obama wins will they start sending checks again since it will be obvious that Clinton did not win? Or will they give up on being pro-choice because they didn't get who they wanted? Like I said I don't really think it matters who gets the nomination aslong as we get a pro-choice president who will reinforce Roe to make it unbreakable.

this, ""Sen. Obama has been a leader on this issue in the United States Senate. Since joining the Senate in 2005, he has worked to unite Americans on both side of this debate behind commonsense, common-ground ways to prevent unintended pregnancy. Sen. Obama supports legislation to provide our teens with comprehensive sex education, prevent pharmacies from denying women access to their legal birth-control prescriptions, and increase access to family-planning services."

Does not say PRO choice.
He is a Christian- a Baptist.
Until I hear HIM say "I believe in a woman's right to abort a fetus"
I will not believe he is as invested in our right to choose as Clinton is.

Education and the day after pill are great,but, they are NOT abortion rights.

One more thing: I'm pretty shocked at some of the intolerant comments I've seen on the NARAL blog. Some choice (no pun intended) comments:

"you made your bed - now go sleep in it with B Hussein O."

"can't believe you aren't endorsing a women for President are you a bunch of stupid ignorant women who prefer to be told what to do by a man"

"I prefer to promote my own minority, not someone else's. Shame on Democratic Women!!!!!"

We cannot liberate ourselves by hurting other oppressed minorities (African-Americans and Muslims, among others) or each other!

I can't help but think that
revsolcialist
and many others are so biased
towards their personal favorite candidates that they would take a statement like the one quoted of Clinton and see it as a negative, while spinning the same (in essence) quote from Obama as positive.

This campaign is a rip to say the least.

Clinton has done more for abortion rights than anyone who comments here, more than Obama, more than too many to list.
Please, be aware of your bias.

SarahMC: "What is the point of endorsing the inevitable Democratic nominee at this point? There is a very slim chance Clinton is going to be the nominee; why did NARAL have to endorse either of them?"

Why? Good question indeed especially since Obama lost West Virginia by close to 40 percentage points. That must have been a bit humilating for him.

Why does Clinton have a slim margin of getting the nomination? This is exactly what many people have been asking. You can't say the math because neither can Obama win based on the math. Who would drop out when it is so close? She is being pushed out by the DNC party.

She just won WV by an outrageous amount, is ahead in the popular vote and yet you hear nothing in the media. Where is the discussion that this is happening to a woman running for president.

Where is the outrage that while Obama was touring a Detroit auto plant (obviously male dominated) he called a female reporter 'sweetie' when he did not want to answer her question?

I believe the popular vote statement includes FL/MI.

Meant to take it out before I posted.

I believe the popular vote statement includes FL/MI.

Meant to take it out before I posted.

ok i really dont' want to thread derail, but if i see this one more time, i'm going to stab something. not because i love obama and hate clinton (i like them both), but because i hate spin and people who can't do math.

"Why does Clinton have a slim margin of getting the nomination? This is exactly what many people have been asking. You can't say the math because neither can Obama win based on the math. Who would drop out when it is so close? She is being pushed out by the DNC party."

yes, we CAN say the math. yes, it is a close race, but the math is in his favor because he is ahead. i direct you to to the slate delegate calculator: http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

you can see for yourself by plugging in numbers for the remaining primaries what would have to happen for clinton to catch up to obama in the delegate lead. it really comes down to numbers--he is too far ahead of her in pledged delegates and (from what we can measure of it, anyway) the popular votes. i haven't been angry at clinton for staying in the fight, but honestly it really is over. it was over awhile ago and i think she knows it and will drop out after the june 3 primaries.

I think it's pretty clear that Obama will be the nominee, but it IS disrespectful and a slap in the face for Clinton. She has a stronger, longer record on choice. That's true regardless of gender. She's done more for women and women's rights, period.

That should be the only consideration for NARAL, and if they were really interested in everyone uniting behind Obama, they wouldn't have endorsed anyone until after the primary, because then we wouldn't all be divided over this issue. You can't do something that you KNOW is divisive and then complain about it dividing people.

Of course he lost West Virginia. It's one of the few states where you can use the N-word without reprisal.

Are you seriously going to count that as a mark against Obama's electability?

"That should be the only consideration for NARAL, and if they were really interested in everyone uniting behind Obama, they wouldn't have endorsed anyone until after the primary, because then we wouldn't all be divided over this issue. You can't do something that you KNOW is divisive and then complain about it dividing people."

You make it sound like NARAL is forcing a division.

No.

We choose to be divided.

You are responsible for yourself, and if you can't support a pro-choice organization because they may have offended Clinton then that's a mark against you rather than a mark against them.

"...it is a close race, but the math is in his favor because he is ahead. "

yes, but he also cannot win unless he gets a certain number of delegates. Being close is NOT a win. So at this point neither can win.

This is why Hillary
should compete and take it to convention.
She could win and that is exactly what they are afraid of.

That's all from me on this thread as I don't want to derail this conversation either.

dedf, the problem with your approach is that you're forgetting that HE IS AHEAD OF HER. it's not that they're both inches away, it's that he's an inch away and she's two inches away and there's no way she can catch up to that in the remaining primaries. this means after the primaries, obama may be still short of the "magic number", but he will have MORE VOTES AND MORE DELEGATES THAN CLINTON AND MORE SUPERDELEGATES. how on earth is there a good case to override both of those numbers to give her the nomination? you can argue that you would WANT the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to side with clinton, but by doing so, you've got to step over the whole popular vote/delegate system thing.

No, what people are afraid of is the two democratic candidates spending all of their time, energy, and money fighting each other, not the real threat. Even if Clinton receives 80% of the votes in all the remaining states, she would still lose. That's why NARAL endorsed Obama - they like both candidates, but they would definitely prefer to see Clinton win. But what they're much more worried about is having an anti-choice president elected. They chose now to back Obama, as others above have said, to get ready to fight McCain.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uUl99id2SvM

Barack understands women's issues

take the time to watch this video of him at Planned Parenthood

To Clinton's credit, she's begun encouraging party unity in recent days (though not before suggesting that Obama can't get the support of white Democrats) while Obama has more or less entirely switched his focus to McCain.

At this point, whether or not Clinton dropping out would be a net positive is debatable. Personally, I don't see the harm in letting her continue to run so long as it is not at any Democrat's expense. Whether or not that is possible, though, is questionable.

@ iqonefiftynine --

EMILY's List is a "social" organization? Um, no. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

NARAL has made some stupid political decisions in the past but this one takes the cake. There is no good reason to endorse in a primary when both candidates are 100% pro-choice.

And frankly, if naral is claiming they need to endorse now because McCain is getting a free pass then they must not be very good at their jobs. It shouldn't take 6 months for the choice community to prove that McCain is not pro-choice.

I don't have to read all 40+ comments, but to the person who said Obama is a Baptist (and anyone who thinks this is true), Obama is a UCC member. The UCC endorsed gay marriage in general synod over 5 years ago, and the church's formal statement on abortion is all about how women are adults who don't need other's to make these decisions for them. So - not Baptist.

I am a UCC member but I was raised Baptist. Couldn't be more different.

Thanks.

I am dissapointed in NARAL's decision. I voted for Clinton but would happily vote for Obama in November and can understand why NARAL would endorse Obama after the primary is over.

However, to endorse him now is ridiculous since Clinton clearly has the stronger record on choice. Several things concern me about Obama's pro-choice record:

-Reproductive rights/choice/abortion is not even mentioned in the issues section of BarackObama.com. It's hard to find anything about Obama's prochoice stance on his website.
-Obama wanted to confirm anti-choice justice John Roberts and only voted against him when he was warned of what it would do to his political career
-Numerous present votes on reproductive issues in the Illinois senate. Apparently he says these votes were supported by Planned Parenthood, but I don't see how not voting against an anti-choice bill is a good thing.

That being said in a contest between him and McCain the choice is obvious. But NARAL's statement that they can't get the record straight about McCain without endorsing a candidate now, instead of in 3 weeks, is BS.

madonna85, thanks for posting that link to the Planned Parenthood video. Obama's speech is really inspiring.

I do not particularly care who NARAL endorses. In fact I am inclined to ignore them entirely.

NARAL has done far more damage to women's rights, and the right to choose, than many. They continued to endorse Republicans in Democratic districts like Rhode Island. This in effect gave the Republicans a greater Majority to use against women.

It is simply naive to think that you can endorse candidates regardless of party, when the Republican party's platform is to restrict a woman's rights over her own body.

That should nock out any candidate that adds to the Republican majority.

NARAL ignored this painful reality for ten years and got Republicans elected that allow the likes of Alito and Roberts to sit on the Supreme court.

F!@k NARAL

PS. I support Obama. Go Barak.

I think it makes plenty of sense.

The two Democrats are both get 100% on their NARAL scores, so they sat it out when the nomination was up for grabs.

But let's face it, the race is over. Obama has over a 99.9% chance of winning the most pledged delegates and from there he'll almost certainly win the nomination.

I'll go ahead and mention the elephant in the living room. NARAL's mission is to defend choice, not elect women (not that electing women isn't a noble goal, it's just not NARAL's mission). From a practical perspective, the critical issue is electing a Democrat to the White house so they can appoint Justices who will defend the Constitution.

They need to assemble behind the Democratic nominee as fast as possible to stop McCain. They can't wait another month when we don't even have six months until the general election.

If choice was Clinton's top priority, I think she'd concede the election to Obama at this point.

Gotta love how now that it looks like Obama's going to get the nomination NOW people are coming forth with endorsements. Apparently they didn't have the guts to pick someone when there was a bigger chance they'd lose. Like Edwards, NARAL is calculating enough that they made the "selection" while the race was still on so it would LOOK genuine, but you know if everyone was saying Clinton was going to win both would have just come forth to endorse her.

Kind of like how George Bush waited until all the Republicans had dropped out before he endorsed McCain.

It's sad, really. Just more attempts to pander to what they think the masses want and put their names in a headline.

I honestly don't understand what people are confused about re: timing. The ranks are closing around Obama in an attempt to finish this up and get a move on.

NARAL made a very strategic, political power play to be an endorser at a critical time in order to secure player status with the person they hope to be the next President. If they bet right, and if the Obama camp sees their endorsement at this time as useful, it will/should buy them some political capital to cash in for the next four years. Waiting till the nomination is all sewn up doesn't give you that leverage. Endorsing early doesn't either.

For those of us who want a president who won't sell us out -- this could be a really great move. It's not a betrayl of Hillary, it's a move to shore up political power for reproductive rights -- that's what NARAL's working for right? Last I checked, they were never the Hillary Campaign Fund.

Also, would like to second the posters talking about Hillary's supposedly incredible stance on choice. Her "sad, tragic" speech was just that for the reproductive justice movement. Let us not forget, no politician is with us 100%.

My heart breaks to see a sister organization pass up the opportunity to endorse our first chance of a president who is a true women's advocate. In addition: I must ask Ann to be cautious about her reference to
"coming to terms with the delegate math". The bottom line is neither Obama nor Hillary will ever gain the total delegates needed to win this primary. It is up to the Superdelegates to decide which candidate is more likely to win in November. Hillary Clinton has proved herself in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. She is also ahead in popular vote when Florida and Michigan are taken into account. This race is FAR from over. We can't turn our back on her now.
In the words of Maya Angelou, "Rise, Hillary, Rise"

Youcantbeatwomen,

I was wondering if you could explain why you think Indiana is a swing state. During my 20+ years of living there I can't recall a single presidential election where it hasn't gone Red in a big way. I'm not claiming to be an expert in any way--I'm being sincere in asking because I may have missed something and would feel pretty dang foolish if I didn't catch it. Unless you mean it's recent claim to fame as having a potential impact on the Democratic Party primaries? Thanks for your time.

Youcantbeatwomen, even if the superdelegates thought Clinton is the better candidate, I don't think they would dare overturn the pledged delegate count. It would make a lot of people feel like the election was 'stolen' from Obama. Those people wouldn't be very enthusiastic about the general election and might even be discouraged from voting.

I'd also just like to say that I think it's wrong to vote for someone based on their gender rather than their policies (which is what Emily's List seems to be promoting, since they exclude men). Admittedly, I don't know a lot about either organization, but NARAL's endorsement gives me a good initial impression of them.

Actually, she's only ahead in the popular vote if you include FL, MI, AND arbitrarily decide to exclude all of the caucus voters whose states haven't submitted the non-delegate numbers, and even those skewed figures would only put her up by less than .1%. It should almost go without saying that it's entire unfair to do either. She only appeared on the ballot in MI because she broke the pledge she signed in New Hampshire to not campaign in either state (which she did) and to withdraw her name (which she didn't). To say nothing about the fact that Obama didn't even appear on the Michigan ballot so it was just free votes for her, awarding her the votes would be rewarding her for breaking the rules and doing something dishonest.
There's also no justification for ignoring the votes of the four caucus states that haven't released their popular vote totals yet.

The last time Indiana went for a Democrat in a presidential race was 1964.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-indiana-economy_bdapr27,1,606302.story

Some swing state.

PA hasn't voted republican since 1988.

Hmm, link worked in the preview.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

as has been noted many times in politico and slate and other blogs, the "popular vote" metric is deeply problematic, due to the caucus system.
also: there is no provable link between performance in the dems primaries and the general election, so clinton doing well in the "swing states" (indiana is not one...) is irrelevant.

"Until I hear HIM say "I believe in a woman's right to abort a fetus"
I will not believe he is as invested in our right to choose as Clinton is."

Um, Clinton wouldn't say that either--its not good politics. Instead they both say that its a woman's choice, its less confrontational. Besides, OBAMA VOTED AGAINST BANNING SO-CALLED "PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS"--many "moderate" pro-choicers voted for that bill. This proves to me that Obama is pro-choice. Besides, Clinton has probably done "present" votes as well--if the vote is going to fail/pass anyways what's the point of giving a chance for the republicans to smear you? Its just good politics, and if a pro-choice group told him to vote present that just proves that it wasn't any indication of an anti-choice position. And as for the John Roberts case, I'm not familiar with it, but I'm guessing that he was arguing that no matter what Bush was going to pick a anti-choice nominee and he probably thought Roberts was somewhat of a moderate.

Obama is pro-choice and is good at politics, together this is the best way to get the legislation we want. Passing legislation is much more effective than declaring "women have the right to abort fetuses."

It really bothers me that the Democratic Party is ganging up on Hillary Clinton despite the fact that she's won all the states that are vital to winning the general election- Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, California...
I also find it really offensive that Obama supporters are all so gleeful about Florida voters being disenfranchised. They don't care about all the votes being counted so long as they win.

When Obama defeats McCain, which he will, especially once he has Bill and Hillary on his side, Women's Choice will be in a very good position. Not just because Obama will only appoint pro-choice judges, but because of the way the government works. Remember, a president cannot make laws. So Hillary, with her newfound clout in the Senate, will be able to craft pro-choice, pro-women policy, and Obama will sign it.

I actually love having her in the Senate, because of her guile and tenacity. No matter how great a President is at the political game, the office is only as valuable as the legislation that makes it to the Prez's desk.

Senator Hillary Clinton will make sure that such legislation is pro-woman. And Obama will sign it.

Tatalie, Pennsylvania and California are both solid blue states in recent history, they're not critical to the general election. Either democratic candidate would carry them. Ohio and Florida are important states for the election, but to say she won Florida without qualifying how she won it isn't being completely honest. She deliberately misled the other candidates, broke her pledge, and used technicalities (like calling her campaigning there "fund raising" to make it legal) in order to win it. She was ahead in the polls before the dispute since it was early on in the primaries, and she likely would've carried the state, but her actions tainted the results. I think a lot of the "glee" you perceive Obama supporters as having on the subject is related more to seeing the dishonest political hedging not pay off, not taTatalie, Pennsylvania and California are both solid blue states in recent history, they're not critical to the general election. Either democratic candidate would carry them. Ohio and Florida are important states for the election, but to say she won Florida without qualifying how she won it isn't being completely honest.

She deliberately misled the other candidates, broke her pledge, and used technicalities (like calling her campaigning there "fund raising" to make it legal) in order to win it. She was ahead in the polls before the dispute since it was early on in the primaries, and she likely would've carried the state, but her actions tainted the results. I think a lot of the "glee" you perceive Obama supporters as having on the subject is related more to seeing the dishonest political hedging not pay off, not about taking pleasure in disenfranchisement.

NARAL's endorsement of Obama now is actually a pretty shrewd political move. The key to the success and impact of any issue based organization like NARAL is access. Access to the President is very hard to get (most members of Congress and long term allies never get a private audience with the President). NARAL is merely buying chips they can cash in later, and doing so by taking a stand that looks politically risky but really is not very risky at all. Despite the fact that the race isn't technically over, the liklihood that Clinton will be the nominee is small, while Obama's chances are very good. Most organizations that touch on issues like reproductive rights are expected to back Clinton because as a woman (and you can see this in the thread above) she is expected to be better on these issues than Obama because she is a woman. She has also consistently fought for women's rights in general and reproductive rights in particular. As such, most groups advocating on those issues are backing Clinton--a relatively safe move and one that is likely to reflect the preferences of their members.

However, since Obama is very likely to be the nominee, being the first reproductive rights group to endorse him puts NARAL at the top of the list for invitations to the White House for any pro-choice events, any bill signings, any comments on tough vetoes, etc. Simply put, they get more and better access. Plus, by endorsing now when it appears risky (because the race isn't technically over yet), NARAL can claim they took the courageous stand to endorse Obama when the other groups were sitting on the sideline or still backing Clinton. And, when NARAL gets the access to the Pesident they are seeking, they can boast about their relative importance with other policy makers and with potential members/donors.

NARAL is playing a long term game. They made a calculated risk that the long term benefits will outweigh any short term loss of members/donations. The endorsement now certainly will endear them to the Obama campaign (and likely administration) over the eventual endorsements from other similar organizations who will ultimately endorse him but only after the race is over and after he is the nominee. Those "well, he's better than McCain" endorsements will pale in comparison to NARAL's in the eyes of the Obama administration. And NARAL can claim to be uniting voices in the race/gender fracas of this primary season--a very Obama-ish political stance.

Viewed in that light, it's a pretty smart move. The ultimate question is whether the long term play will work out, i.e., whether Obama will win the nomination and the general electin, and whether there will be an opportunity for NARAL to cash in their chips with that administration such that they can buy back some of the goodwill lost with their members.

This is mind blowing. Its organizational stupidity. It has and will loose NARAL State board members. And supporters such as myself who over the years have hosted house parties and fund raisers and turned out when called to do so. I am sorry to say it but I am not supporting NARAL with my money or time anymore.

I am now going shopping for a pro-choice replacement for my time and money. One that has the good sense NOT to indulge in organizational suicide prior to very important State elections and legislative sessions.

Ask yourselves if NARAL is going to get through the door of the many legislators around the country who support Hillary in this primary period? I imagine they will still vote pro-choice but they are not going to be taking NARAL’s calls anytime soon and that makes NARAL pretty damn ineffectual. Nor is this going to help with fence sitting Reps. who will see that NARAL will endorse on the bench but “present� voting candidates over the champions who pick up the ball for the full court press. Here comes a period of back sliding politics on choice and other womens issues because why take the heat when the deciding criteria is popularity?

I don’t care if you vote Obama or Clinton but NARAL is a singe issue organization and they just blew off their credibility with their base by supporting the ok but not terribly courageous record instead of the stellar record on their single issue. My time and money is for organizations that stay true to their mission. Be that open space preservation, water and air quality, peace, social justice, clean energy or whatever.

Most of the angry with the timing and failing to follow the NARAL organizational vision people such as myself are the activist/members that have supported NARAL for many many years. Contrast that to those that feel that NARAL made the right choice in endorsing now rather then seeing the normal nominating process play out. Most of the “Thank you NARAL� commentors are not members, have never protested anti-choice groups, escorted women to family planning clinics under attack by the right wing wack-jobs, testified at State legislative hearings against anti-choice bills, written letters to the editors or contributed financial. Nor are they likely to.

I bothers me when I hear people talking about the Democratic party "ganging up" on Hillary, because it makes it sound like Hillary is a defenseless little girl who can't take care of herself. This is Hillary Clinton! No one is tougher!

Anyway, for the people who are wondering why NARAL couldn't have waited - well, for what? True, most believe it will be over in three weeks, but hey, in January we thought it would be over by March. What if Clinton decides to press on to the convention? Should the entire progressive movement just wait for her to bow out, no matter how long that is?

I think some people might not know what an endorsement from a group like NARAL means. It's not a statement they make and then just forget about. It means they will be actively working on Obama's behalf - and this work takes time to plan. Really, they're going to want their organizers and canvassers to be out there with materials this summer. Those materials take time to develop and print. Same with earned and paid media. June is typically the latest you want to hit the ground with a field program, so even this late date is cutting it close.

As for the "present" votes, I can't believe we're still having this argument. Obama voted "present" because Planned Parenthood asked him to. It wasn't some sleazy trick, or a way for Obama to slink away from his responsibility. It was a way to protect pro-choice representatives who were from conservative districts. These are senators that probably would have voted nay (or been voted out of office and replaced with anti-choice people) if they had not had this option. This was a way of ensuring that pro-choice measures were passed. To pretend otherwise is somewhat disengenuous.

Most of the angry with the timing and failing to follow the NARAL organizational vision people such as myself are the activist/members that have supported NARAL for many many years. Contrast that to those that feel that NARAL made the right choice in endorsing now rather then seeing the normal nominating process play out. Most of the “Thank you NARAL� commentors are not members, have never protested anti-choice groups, escorted women to family planning clinics under attack by the right wing wack-jobs, testified at State legislative hearings against anti-choice bills, written letters to the editors or contributed financial. Nor are they likely to.

Wow, what an assumption. What are you basing this on?

Really the decision to endorse makes sense if you look at it logically. Clinton cannot catch up, that is quite simply, a fact. She would have to win at 91%+ in every other primary to come out even close to on top. (Or something around those margins, read an article about two days ago that said 91%, but they all fluctuate depending on what source you're reading from)

As to W.VA-It counts among it some of the poorest and least educated people in the country, 95% white, with almost no urban (code name for black) areas. I'm sorry, but the election was insignificant at beast, and a waste of time at the worst.

However I will agree that the endorsement was a slap in the face to Clinton, if nothing else they could have waited a few weeks.

@ blogjunkie

EMILY was founded by a Patrician heiress to the IBM fortune and will only support candidates that look like Hillary. Nope it's not a social club at all. Pass the martinis. Gloria Steinem style feminism is tired! That's why this site got started in the first place.

NARAL played their cards right on this one. Your candidate lost get over it!

I bothers me when I hear people talking about the Democratic party "ganging up" on Hillary, because it makes it sound like Hillary is a defenseless little girl who can't take care of herself. This is Hillary Clinton! No one is tougher!

That's a good point, but all you have to do is read these comments and see that people are ganging up on her. That's not saying she can't take care of herself, but look at how people react. She's a very small number of delegates behind and people are crying that she should drop out mere weeks before the end of primary season. She's outright slammed with attacks that are mostly unfounded and based on sexism. If Obama were behind by the same small number, no one would be calling for him to drop out.

Whoa, I just went over to CNN to check the actual delegate count - apparently Obama had to apologize for calling a female reporter "sweetie" in Michigan. He also called a factory worker in PA "sweetie."

some thoughts.

First, I think this shows the limits of a single-issue organization. I mean, are they supposed to (for example) endorse a GOP candidate who says "I think women should have the right to choose, but black people are an inferior species?"

I mean, it could happen, if we limit ourselves to single-issue thinking at the expense of everything else. It also contributes to the oppression olympics meme which we need to kill dead now.

As to Hillary winning certain states, or not, primary performance (as one above noted) isn't terribly relevant to the general election performance except insofar as it tells you a base of party voters. in that sense, whoever the nominee is has a good place to start from.

That said, the polls I see show both could win. Hillary has stronger support in traditionally Democratic states (call them the Kerry/Gore states) but it seems to me she loses out in places that Obama puts in play. So Clinton is forced to campaign heavily in Florida and Ohio (which she could win) to get the presidency, while Obama puts McCain on the defensive in more places ven though he wouldn't get as big a chunk of the vote. He's tied with McCain in Indiana, for instance (or within the margin of error). That would be a huge win, as would states such as NC, or even Colorado. Hillary doesn't poll well in any of those places and doesn't seem to get any help from Bill in Arkansas.

The bottom line is neither Obama nor Hillary will ever gain the total delegates needed to win this primary.

This is wrong. The superdelegates are more than enough to swing the candidates to the required number.

And if you've been paying attention at all, over 90% of the superdelegates over the last 2 months have been slowly gravitating towards Obama.

Even after Hillary won WV by 40 points, she got a grand total of ONE superdelegate endorsement, when Obama got 4 in the same day.

Yes, Hillary will probably "win" the popular vote using all those convoluted metrics the Clinton camp is advocating, but its clear that the superdelegates are not impressed.

Assuming that Hillary wins Kentucky and Puerto Rico by 30 points, and splits Oregon, SD, and Montana, she would have to win 75% of the undecided superdelegates to get the nomination.

Folks, thats not happening unless Obama is assassinated or something much much worse than Jeremiah Wright comes out to haunt him.

So lets quit with the nonsense that Obama "cant get the required number" because thats just flat out false. The superdelegates are going to give it to him.

Jess,

A single issue org is freedom, not limitation. If your hypothetical candidate was a Democrat, EMILY's list would support her based on their charter. NARAL however, could and would more easily find another candidate who didn't have those offensive views as they are not limited by party, gender, race or age.

There was a HUGE win for Clinton in WV. Hillary 67% to Obama's 26% and yet, not a word in the media. Why aren't we questioning this?
The media is deciding the election for us now. When Obama won Guam with only 7 votes, it was considered by the media as a great win!

This is a competition that will conclude at Convention. If Clinton wins she 'won' the election, she did not 'steal' it as the Obama camp would like you to believe (nice trick though). She competed and won.

Really how many books have been written over the years that state women don't get ahead because they don't or won't compete, that it's not in their nature, and other nonsense. And now when we have a women who is competing and could win, the Obama supporters yell she should drop out. Yes, of course she should drop out because she could win!

Yes once again we have a woman expected to sacrifice for everyone else (oh but it's for the good of the party, so it's okay).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4STLISLdxi4
So in a male dominated environment he demeans a woman. Was he belittling this woman to appeal to the men there?
We would never accept this in the workplace place, but we vote for someone like this? He knew what he was doing.

Naral could have waited, but no, they decided to throw Hillary under the bus. You have to really question this.
...with all this how can women wonder why things never change and women never get ahead.

I got an email about this yesterday morning and I was not pleased. I feel like once again, Hilary Clinton was silenced and ignored. Obama may be winning according to delegate counts, but I find it very cunning, that everyone started endorsing Obama as soon as Hilary started to gain some small ground politically. I admire Clinton for not just giving up. NARAL's endorsement also hit me on another level. Everyone is making a giant leap that Obama will support abortion and women's right, making an assumption. We know Hilary (and Bill's) Clinton's view on abortion and women's rights. Hilary is a woman, to ignore what she is personally doing, by even running for the presidency for the advancement of women is an insult.

@dedf.

The W.VA win is getting huge press, you just choose to ignore it apparently. Besides that, it was hardly what anyone would call an important win. It was a state made up of her biggest supporters, 95% white, no 'urban' areas, and some of the least educated and poorest people in the country. It was basically a Clinton state right from the start.

Besides that, her chances of actually catching Obama in delegates (you know...the thing that elects the nominee) are basically nil. She needs 91%+ of the rest of the pledged delegates to catch up. Do you realize how impossible that is? Even in a state perfect for her she couldn't do that!
(source:http://salon.glenrose.net/default.asp?view=plink&id=7296)

As to the youtube link-people will make a controversy over anything. It's oversensitive to get angry over a mispoken 'sweetie' comment. He even called her personally and explain he was sorry and that it was a slip of his tongue a few hours afterwords.

I'm no Obama junkie, but to claim that Hillary still has any hope of getting elected is beyond me. Unless Obama slips up and starts kill little furry animals in front of a camera or something, he's going to get the nomination.

Clinton has a longer record on pro-choice issues, but her stance on the actual substance is NOT stronger than Obama's

Remember its Hillary, not Obama who keeps pandering to conservatives with these BS speeches about how "abortion is a terrible thing and should be rare"

Obama has remained strongly pro-choice with no pandering on this issue at all, unlike Hillary who is moving to the "right" of Obama on pro-choice matters.

She's outright slammed with attacks that are mostly unfounded and based on sexism. If Obama were behind by the same small number, no one would be calling for him to drop out.

OK, well, I guess that's where we differ. I think many of the "attacks" on Clinton are quite reasonable. For instance, when she made her "hard-working Americans, white Americans" that was just base pandering. Or breaking the rules in Michigan and then trying to pretend it's a voting rights issue.

And man, if Obama had lost 11 contests in a row (as Clinton did in Feburary)? Clinton would have been the nominee long ago. I don't buy the idea that Obama has gotten a free pass - I think he has just run a remarkably good campaign and is winning because of that.

The sweetie thing is sort of assy, though he did call the reporter and apologize, unlike McCain and the 14-year-old girl who he called "attractive" and then made fun of on The Daily Show. Asshat.

For those of you who insist it's hard to find Barack Obama's position on choice on his website, it's at "Women" on the "People" drop down menu:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues

Kind of a weird placement, but his positions are certainly solid.

I have only read half of these comments, but I think several issues are important here. I do think Clinton is more strongly pro-choice than Obama - if I recall correctly he supports parental consent. I read this somewhere early on in the campaign process.

I do not think the nomination is oh so locked up as people keep saying. If Obama wins the necessary amount of delegates in the primaries without the need for the unpledged super delegates then yes he will get the nomination. However, if he does not, the superdelegates are going to decide the nomination and their objective is to get the most electable person into the candidacy not necessarily to just listen to the will of the people – they have a greater responsibility to the party itself. I know there are a lot of issues related to this "selection" of a presidential nomination and the irony surrounding them is boundless.

Obama is more religious than Clinton (he defines marriage between a man and a woman, this was printed in some FL paper – maybe even Florida Today - when our primary occurred, if this is not a religious POV i dont know what is.) Clinton is more socially liberal than Obama will ever be. Ultimately, the most important thing is the impending retirement of SCOTUS justices thus the need for a Democratic president – whoever that person may be.

As far as NARAL's endorsement is concerned I agree with LizRiz - too little too late and he is NOT the stronger supporter of abortion and reproductive rights. I think they picked him because they believe he will be the candidate and for no other reason. I find organizations like this who tip their hat at the end of a primary season to be wasting their breaths. This is a hotly contested candidacy. Best to wait until AFTER a candidate is actually determined. With all these superdelegates right now the numbers mean little UNLESS he hits the 2025 mark at the end of the primary season. With all the scuttlebutt about this campaign what IF Clinton wins the nominee from the super delegates because of the electability issue? I imagine NARAL is gonna have to turn right around and endorse her. NARAL jumped the gun on this one.

Ok - now I have read more comments. There is absolutely NO reason WHY Clinton should bow out before the convention UNLESS Obama reaches 2025 delegates. THIS is the political process the DNC has created people - it is WRONG of them to tell Clinton she should bow out. THIS is what democracy is all about. This convo IS about the election and the endorsement. I do not think talking about Obamas/Clintons chances is off topic because this thread is about an endorsement for someone who is not yet the nominee! Pelosi said this was a delegate race - but its likely to turn into a super delegate race.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you all need to really think about the reality of a general election. Obama's chances are iffy at best in a general election. He is not likely to win over the Reagan Democrats out there, but of course that is still all up in the air. The big states that Clinton won ARE relevant. When McCain picks Gov. Crist to be his VP (I live in FL) McCain is going to garner HUGE support across the board. Crist is a conservative but he has bridged the gap in FL - i am reallly liberal but i love a lot of the things he has done already (fiscally). Furthermore, is the US ready for a black president? Ideally speaking yeah, but the reality is probably that a woman has a better chance of becoming president of the US before a black man will. If Obama becomes the nominee I hope to hell America proves my jaded ass wrong. I voted for Clinton (though my vote is apparently not going to count) and I will gladly vote for Obama in November, but I have a lot of concern and worry about him in a national race. I am sorry to shift this convo but I think some of the opinions expressed here are filled with very idealistic sentiment about Obama’s chances. I do not think this election is so simple as is being expressed here.

(damn this post is long, my bad)

Firstly, I am really glad to see that