NYT: Naral Picks Obama, and Uproar Breaks Out

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/politics/16campaign.html?ref=us

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: May 16, 2008

The decision by a major abortion-rights group to endorse Senator Barack Obama has created an uproar among some of its affiliates and other abortion-rights advocates. Many said that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had as good a record on reproductive rights as Mr. Obama and that there was no need to take sides in the Democratic primary.

The endorsement by the group, Naral Pro-Choice America, which was announced Wednesday, came as a blow to the Clinton campaign. Mrs. Clinton, who had the support of the group throughout her political career, told NBC News on Wednesday that not getting the Naral nod was a disappointment.

Clinton supporters in the blogosphere said they perceived it as a badly timed gratuitous slap at Mrs. Clinton as she grapples with the likely end of her quest for the presidency. It came on the same day that Mr. Obama received the support of former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, and his backers hailed it as further evidence that the nomination fight was drawing to a close.

In a sign of his increasing confidence, Mr. Obama, who collected four more superdelegates on Thursday, including Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, took the day off from the campaign trail. Mrs. Clinton spent the afternoon in South Dakota, talking about agriculture policy, before heading to Los Angeles for a fund-raiser.

In making the Naral announcement, Nancy Keenan, the president, said Mr. Obama, who leads in the delegate count and could claim the nomination as early as Tuesday, was the more viable candidate. Ms. Keenan said it was important to make the announcement now because Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, who opposes abortion rights, was getting a “free ride.”

The nine board members of Naral’s political action committee were almost evenly divided, between Clinton and Obama backers, said Elizabeth Shipp, political director of Naral. After a conference call last Friday, they voted unanimously to endorse Mr. Obama but to wait until after the West Virginia primary on Tuesday to announce their decision.

FULL story at link.

[MADem]

1. Major mistake on the part of NARAL. The Backlash Cometh, I think. NT

[Warpy]

3. I don't think so

because all they did was wait until a clear winner started to emerge. They were at least as likely to endorse Clinton. Both candidates have a solid pro choice record.

Endorsements don't make a hell of a lot of difference at this stage of the game. Delegate votes are what count.

The insistence of Clintonites that Clinton has somehow been wronged is silly. Had she been as clear a favorite as Obama is, she undoubtedly would have gotten the endorsement.

[MADem]

4. It's already happened. They've been swamped with emails, and donors walking.

It wasn't the choice so much as they didn't NEED to say shit.

Endorsements may not make a difference, but I am not talking about the campaigns. I'm talking about NARAL. People with deep pockets are telling them to go fuck themselves.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F2B1FB64-3048-5C12-003C3C2F90B30DCF

Here, don't believe ME, listen to "them:"

NARAL reeling from Obama endorsement
By: Beth Frerking
May 17, 2008 08:44 AM EST

With the clock running down on a long-fought primary, NARAL Pro-Choice America leaders sent state affiliates reeling this week by endorsing Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. It was seen as a gratuitous slap in the face to a longtime ally, and it sparked a fear even closer to home: that the move will alienate donors loyal to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Many on this week’s conference call were stunned on learning the news, making urgent pleas for the group to remain neutral until after the June 3 Democratic primaries.

“It’s created a firestorm,” said NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin, who was on the conference call. “Everyone was mystified ... saying, ‘What is the upside for the organization? And, frankly, a lot of concern about the donor base. ... There was real concern there would be a backlash.”
There was a backlash, and it was swift, starting with NARAL’s own website. At last count, there were more than 3,300 comments in an electronic chat about the endorsement, the overwhelming majority of them negative. “Shame shame shame!” read one, with many correspondents threatening never to support NARAL financially again. “No more donations from me!!!” wrote another.

In Washington, two dozen women members of Congress who support Clinton held a quickly organized press conference to tout her abortion-rights record Wednesday night. Ellen Malcolm, founder of the abortion-rights women’s fundraising group EMILY’s List, sharply rebuked NARAL for its endorsement. Two former members of Congress (and Clinton supporters) — Geraldine Ferraro and Pat Schroeder — jabbed at NARAL for endorsing before the general election. “Looks like some higher ups at NARAL are trying to get jobs in the new administration ... nothing else makes sense to us,” they wrote in a joint letter.

A number of feminist donors — including several Obama supporters — were shaking their heads at the timing, said a source who has worked on women’s health and reproductive rights issues for 25 years and meets routinely with top contributors to the cause.

“Without exception, the response was, 'It’s a really stupid thing to do,'” said the source....

[Warpy]

10. It's sad that Clintonites have so few principles

that they would sacrifice a core principle simply because the organization that fights hardest to keep that principle in place backed the presumptive candidate instead of their own.

Shame on the lot of them.

[MADem]

11. Way to not even read what I wrote or look at the matter in context.

But then, that's how you folks seem to do it. Blame the masses, not the leadership.

NARAL isn't fighting very hard. That's the point. They're going more--almost overly so-- for the "rare" part of safe/legal/rare. Might have to do with the fact that not only is Keenan an idiot, she's also a Catholic.

Shame on you for not paying attention to the issue. Most of the state NARAL organizations have VIGOROUSLY disavowed their outfits from the actions of a whacky, out of control, stupid national leadership that has made poor choices in the past and continues to drag the organization down a rocky path to RUIN. That isn't the fault of the donors, that's the fault of the LEADERSHIP. The state agencies and the members aren't "sacrificing" their principles--they're calling Keenan a fucking IDIOT, because that is what she is.

Incompetence rules at the national organization, but you're so frigging partisan you refuse to see that.

The one with the substantively better record on this issue is CLINTON. And everyone, save you apparently, knows it. Instead, you wag your finger and complain about core principles. Suck it up, shut up, stop complaining. Fuck that attitude.

It ain't core principles, it's common fucking sense. Keenan has none.

If she isn't going to reflect the views of her membership, she can reap the consequences. Don't blame the membership for not rolling over like good dogs. That shit ain't happening. That fool CAN be replaced.

[Warpy]

12. Your point is that they should have endorsed Clinton or shut up.

I responded to that point.

Their only fault lies in timing. Had they waited until after the convention, there would be no controversy.

[MADem]

13. "Shut up" would have been FINE with me. Even most thinking BO supporters feel that way.

My only point was, if you were to judge them on the actual issue, Clinton IS plainly the better choice. She has more of a record, her record has no "present" votes in it, and she has stood up when it was tough to do so.

I didn't aver that NARAL "had" to endorse anyone. I simply noted that they didn't make their endorsement based on facts.


Only crazed, rabid partisans (or McCain supporters) think what Keenan did was a) A good idea; b) Well timed; or c) needed. It's like Keenan is a closeted operative for "Right to Life" and the McCain campaign rolled into one.

Of COURSE the organization is going to support the Democrat. That's a foregone conclusion. An "after the convention" endorsement wouldn't have alienated the vast majority of their membership, and it would have been a good time to troll for donations, too. But this action was IDIOTIC. They inserted themselves into an ongoing primary battle, and they're going to pay--in real dollars, in real donations, and for a long, long time--for their stupidity.

Hopefully, this will be one more big red X on Keenan's report card. She's an idiot; she needs to GO. About the only way they can recover is for the board to toss her ass--quickly would be good- and replace her with someone who pledges to remain "ISSUES based" and not be so eager to place a bet on what looks, now anyway, to be the horse ahead in the race. All her actions did was piss off probably the MAJORITY of their membership--those plain, "low information" middle aged, working class women who send that ten or twenty dollar check that is the bread and butter of that outfit. See, I rather doubt all those male college students who are hoot-hoot-hooting for Obama are regular contributors to NARAL, either at the state or national level. And I rather doubt they EVER will be.

Makes ya wonder who Keenan is really working for. I just can't imagine that anyone who wants to see a Democrat in the White House could possibly be that STUPID.

[DJ13]

2. That decision was only controversial to those who refuse to acknowledge the race is over

The fact they held off endorsing until now should be a clue to those who are criticizing it that NARAL didnt want to take sides, so long as there was a valid race still going on.

They obviously no longer consider Hillary to be a viable candidate, and in that light they did the right thing.

[MADem]

5. And to NARAL, who had better start sending out donation requests to those college kids. NT

[leftofcool]

6. And quite soon.

The rumor is that they made their state chapters really angry over this because the state presidents were not consulted about the decision. Do we have any links as to how many members they lost?

[MADem]

8. The state chapters have "disavowed." It's unclear how helpful that will be.

After all, they feed the national beast.

I swear, that fucking nitwit Keenan is probably a closet anti-choice cretin. She certainly has been pushing the entire organization in an interesting direction in that regard (see the first link, below). Regardless, she has got to be the STUPIDEST human being to ever run a major nonprofit. She makes that idiot sleeparound/sexual harasser former IRS boss over at the Red Cross look like a brain.

They've gotten a boat load of angry emails. The affiliates are scrambling to distance themselves. Everyone save Keenan is saying "WTF YOU STUPID IDIOT???" She's saying "Get over your broken heart." Way to motivate people.

I don't go for that B word, but it sure fits that clueless tool.

Aside from the link above, these elucidate:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1807242,00.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/15/naral_affiliates_question_obam.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/politics/16campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/some_naral_memb.html

[qijackie]

7. Thanks! Your post made me smile! NARAL certainly lost a lot

of long-time supporters of that organization. As well they should have for making such a blunder. And if it was done knowing that so many women would stop donating, then one wonders at where they are planning to fish for future dollars.

[MADem]

9. Keenan is a Catholic. I often wondered how she cut that NARAL cloth against her faith.

She hasn't been excommunicated, and she is fairly high-viz.

Now, I know. She's emphasizing the "rare" part, which is more in alignment with the BO agenda. Next thing you know, the fucking A in NARAL will be changed to mean ABSTINENCE.

At the end of the day, all she's done is be a divisive ass. She's a crummy leader, and really STUPID, too. On the issues, Clinton beats Obama hands down, not only in lack of "present" votes, but also "time on station" dealing with the issues.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.