The choice lobby divided
That NARAL endorsement of Obama was not all that it appeared.
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.
Comments Greg Sargent on Talking Points Memo:
Obviously the NARAL endorsement was a huge get for Obama, but you can't avoid the fact that this 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.
Also re endorsements yesterday:
The Edwards endorsement, though, is singular. Elizabeth Edwards is not scheduled to add her voice to the growing Democratic chorus rallying behind Mr. Obama’s campaign.
Publicly, Mrs. Edwards has said that she favors Mrs. Clinton’s health care plan. Privately, she has told several associates she is unsure if Mr. Obama is the party’s best candidate.






Comments
Mrs. Edwards and I think alike. Wish she were on the ticket. Even fighting an illness she is hands down the best potential candidate.
Posted by: Ci.Ci
|
May 15, 2008 09:35 AM
Edwards' endorsement would have carried more integrity if it had come earlier in the race. Nonetheless, he's just one of a long line of Democratic losers who failed to whip Republicans or failed to get the nomination (and some are just plain Clinton haters)...sour, incompetent grapes all the way around.
I only thought I couldn't get more pissed at the Democratic leadership/at some of Obama's supporters. Obviously I was wrong. Tthe current chorus singing 'Edwards for VP' combined with Michelle's 'absolutely not' for Hillary makes it clear that respect for Hillary's supporters is as nonexistent as respect for what the Clintons have done for the Democratic Party/country. Keep it up.
Obviously Hillary's healthcare plan is the best. Obama's, of course, is better than the incredibly backward one McBush put forth; but it wouldn't cover everyone...as Hillary's would. But it's just healthcare for all of us...compared to that triangulation crap, compared to...never mind.
ELIZABETH FOR PRESIDENT/VP...whatever will get her working for us.
Posted by: zelda
|
May 15, 2008 09:45 AM
Interesting Zelda thinks of Edwards as a loser. One term Senator who lost a run for the Presidency just a few months earlier than HC. I will be expecting zelda to call HC the same thing in a few short weeks or less.
I scanned the comments on NARALS blog yesterday. The Clinonistas were shrill to put it mildly. And as usual they had no idea nor were they willing to consider facts such as HC's responsibility for placing the most conservative Dems in the Senate (and House) like anti choice Pryor and others. Sad.
As for EE, I just hope her health is not troubling her.. bless her heart.
Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR
|
May 15, 2008 10:41 AM
Zelda and CiCi: Please, take a deep breath. A lot of us are like Bill Clinton said he was, having waited all of our lives to vote for a black candidate for President and to vote for a woman candidate for President. Being for Obama does not make us against women's rights any more than being for Hillary means you have racial antipathies. Everyone who is progressive about politics has had to choose one or the other as the candidate he or she thinks would be, all things considered, at least somewhat better. Myself, I think Obama's health plan is good, but Hillary's is better; on the other hand I figure Hillary would be reasonable on foreign policy (certainly in comparison to Bush/Cheney), but I like Obama's stance that you should be open to talks with the people you don't like and should refrain from threats to do what they do. I admire Hillary's determination and stamina, but I also value Obama's charisma. I know she is appealing to older voters, but he seems to attract young ones especially well. Why fall out over an unavoidable choice between two very, very good candidates in the primary?
Posted by: Snapback
|
May 15, 2008 10:52 AM
The only Hillary supporters I don't respect are the ones who say they'll vote/campaign for/donate money to McSame if Hillary isn't the nominee.
Clinton was a great president...2 words...'balanced budget.' (something the party of 'fiscal responsibility' might want to consider)
All the other Clinton supporters are great with me, and she would be an AWESOME president imo.
Go Hillary!
However, Obama has won more states, more votes, and more delegates, and even if you don't think it's his turn...he's still better than John McSame.
Also, you give the nomination to the person who WINS. Obama still has some delegates to go. No reason to quit until the game is over.
You would hate a sports team that doesn't even try for the miraculous 2 minute comeback to win the game.
Posted by: JK
|
May 15, 2008 10:54 AM
No, eureka, I won't be calling Hillary a loser in a few months; now in a few years and depending upon on her actions...I may. Perhaps I did use the 'loser' term a little looser than I intended. I meant it to apply to all those who've ran for president, were beaten by a Republican AND continue to castigate the Clintons without giving them one iota of credit for all they've done for the Democratic Party/people. And, as I stated, the timing of Edwards' endorsement was, well...it didn't put him/his endorsement in the best light. For the record, I thought (and still think) Edwards should've been the nominee instead of Kerry. And, I think Edwards stands a better chance of beating McCain than either Obama or Hillary. Primarily because he's white/male...not too much of a culture shock for those so-called Reagan Dems.
I purposely didn't oppose NARAL's endorsement of Obama, eureka, because, as I've stated before, men are just as capable of being feminists as women (and women can be chauvinistic pigs); and I didn't know Obama's record on pro-choice/feminist's issues. My beef this time around is with Edwards' timing and the long list of Democratic losers (i.e. Kennedy/Kerry/Dean) who obviously have a thing or two to learn about winning elections from the Clintons. I honestly believe much, not all, of their endorsements stemmed from Clinton hatred rather than from ethics. It's not in anyway a statement against Obama.
No doubt, Snapback, Obama is light years ahead of Hillary in that charisma stuff...so is her hubby.
Posted by: zelda
|
May 15, 2008 11:11 AM
I completely agree, Snap, except your telling me to take a deep breath. I think there is some racism and some sexism involved in the voting patters, but I don't have a problem with that. I do have a huge problem with the MSM and progressive websites calling Hillary trashey names just because she is Obama's opponent but I don't even think that is truly sexism - I think it is plain old class hate of the Clintons, their true belief is that only hicks live in Ark. I think everytime an Arkansan bashes Hillary they are pumping up the idea that Arkansas could not possibly have sent a couple to DC who had class. They whooped it up when Bill showed his ass in the oval office, and couldn't wait to do the smirks and remarks on late nite tv. But, I happen to think that either way - first Black man or first white woman, we are in great shape........as long as we win. I happen to believe Hillary would have an easier time of winning, but I'll do my best for Obama. So, chill snap.
Posted by: Ci.Ci
|
May 15, 2008 12:34 PM