I swear this primary is little more than a Rorshach test, you see what you see. I still have yet to be convinced either way that Obama is a better candidate than Clinton, or vice versa, because what I still see is a candidate spouting platitudes versus another candidate spouting platitudes.
Which is why I think NARAL’s official, early endorsement of Barack Obama is a bit confounding because NARAL has given both Clinton and Obama consistent 100% ratings on reproductive issues. [via]
Nancy Keenan, director of NARAL, explains the official endorsement on HuffPo with a general “he’s a uniter, not a divider” stance, which is great and all, but I’ve yet to see a difference between the candidates on reproductive issues except that Clinton’s been around longer than Obama and thus has a more detailed record* on the books. Both candidates have been on the right side of the issue at almost every opportunity available, which makes me wonder if NARAL wants to jump in early to claim some monetary advantage over other PACs by siding with the candidate that currently looks like the winner.
Meanwhile EMILY’s List** president Ellen R. Malcolm says in a press release:
“I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton – who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade – to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”
Some kerfluffle has erupted over the “final three weeks” part of her statement, which is silly, personally, because candidates were never expected to drop out of the primaries until recent years. Way back when, the official party candidate was chosen at the national conventions, not before. As I’ve mentioned before, a longer primary process allows states that are less important in the existing primary structure a chance to see the candidates up close and generate conversation and excitement about the democratic process. Wake the fuck up, DNC. This is a good thing.
Oh, remember back in the day when NARAL and Planned Parenthood both endorsed Joe fucking Lieberman as the candidate for reproductive choice? That was nice.***
Why the rush? What’s the agenda? And is it all about money?
[via]
UPDATE: Mnemnosyne comments below but fleshes out the opinion better IMO at Feministe. Probably the most likely tactical take that I’ve seen so far, despite the “NARAL doesn’t owe anyone anything!!!11! OBAMA w00t!” arguments:
What they’re doing is making their choice between Clinton/DLC and Obama/Dean.
We have two factions of the Democratic party fighting it out for control right now, and the fact that the heads of those factions are (respectively) a white woman and a black man is disguising the underlying battle for control of the party.
NARAL went with the DLC over the Dean faction last time and endorsed Lieberman over Lamont. They got burned — bad. Now they’re pissed, and they’re signaling that they are not going to blindly support DLC candidates anymore.
The surface battle is white woman vs. black man and a lot of people are responding emotionally to that, but underlying that is the question of whether we’re going to stick with the DLC’s 50%+1 strategy for winning elections or go with Dean’s 50-state strategy. That’s the calculation that NARAL is making, especially since both Clinton and Obama have a 100% rating on reproductive rights.
I agree with this, even if I’m not thrilled with NARAL’s official non-answer of an explanation for endorsing Obama, but I also believe, due to the timing, that this is about getting attention, publicity, and regaining relevancy in the movement for NARAL. It’s not necessarily a bad thing for a PAC to be a PAC, except that I expect PACs with an idealistic single-issue focus that represent me in some form to remain true to their ideals and not fall prey to political opportunism, regardless of the scale of opportunity. Moreover, M’s observation that “the surface battle is white woman vs. black man” speaks to how ravenously hungry so many of us are for minority representation in the national spotlight, which explains in part why we’re all so goddamned angry about the primary in the first place.
Also, what she said.
__________________
* Admittedly I’m squidgy about Obama being on record saying he’s unsure about whether life begins at conception, but in the context of the quote it looks like he’s aiming to give a non-answer so he doesn’t upset social conservatives. Rhetorically, it’s no different in context than the “safe, legal, and rare” stance from Clinton. Still, it would be nice for a candidate to detail publicly that life doesn’t begin with “ensoulment” or magical super sperm.
** EMILY’s List is an organization aimed at electing pro-choice women for governor and congress, so it’s clear what their agenda is, and like Cara I don’t see anything disrespectful about Clinton in the initial statement by Keenan (see here for another press release from the pro-Clinton National Women’s Political Caucus). But NARAL, I don’t get it.
*** Do yourself a favor and recall the last endorsement shit storm that surrounded NARAL’s picking Joe Lieberman — and in their favor, the anti-John Roberts ads.
If they did it for money, then I think that was a dumb move. I talked to my mom last evening and she was not only angry about the endorsement, but vowed to never donate again to them.
I just don’t get the timing of it at all…
I think the timing makes perfect sense, if you assume that the Democratic nomination race is effectively (but not literally) over. NARAL has demonstrated a real focus on enhancing their bargaining position in the traditional lobbyist way (see: Lieberman endorsement). Obama and Clinton are virtually indistinguishable on choice issues, so it made sense for them to be neutral until this point. But if they wait until the election is decided, they will be at the very, very back of the influence bus. This way they have something to offer (enhancing the perceived “rally effect” and accelerating the end of the primaries), with a reasonable hope of getting something in return later. They’re taking a risk with their donor base, but so is EVERY organization that has endorsed either candidate, since there are enthusiastic activists on both sides.
It’s not pretty, but this is generally just the way it’s done. What I don’t understand are groups that have endorsed Clinton that are still sinking money into it. I just don’t see where their percentage is, since Clinton isn’t going to be the nominee and they’re probably irritating Obama.
Luckily, they sent a press release out explaining why.
I think that conservative watching puts a lot of us in a suspicious frame of mind, but not everyone is evil or has secret ill intentions. NARAL is an organization that wears its strategies on its sleeves. If you want to know why they do something, they’ll usually have the information on their site. I’m not saying I agree with every move, but I know why they did it.
Erm, Amanda, how does that make any sense at all? Why endorse yesterday, when it looks like an attempt to undermine Clinton’s victory in West Virginia? I’m not saying that is why they chose yesterday, but gosh that is how it looks. Why not weeks ago if ending McCain’s free ride is so important?
And why does endorsing Obama “end McCain’s free ride.”? Couldn’t NARAL run ads criticizing McCain without endorsing a candidate in the primaries? Yes indeed they could. Don’t insult our intelligence.
Actually, I think they did it because they got burned by their Lieberman endorsement last time.
A lot of people keep forgetting that this primary isn’t just the white woman vs. the black guy. It’s the DLC’s 50% 1 strategy vs. the DNC’s 50-state strategy. NARAL listened to the DLC last time and now they’re pissed that they got hoodwinked into supporting someone who’s gone over to the Republicans in all but name. So they’re rejecting the DLC candidate (Clinton) in favor of the DNC candidate (Obama). It actually makes perfect sense if you ignore the sexual and racial politics that keep getting thrown up in the media and look at the struggle within the Democratic party.
Personally, I think NARAL made the right choice, but I’m a 50-stater all the way no matter what each candidate has in their pants.
Not sure if I’ll make it thru mod but:
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/the-scoop-on-naral/
I have to admit, I’m constantly astounded at the people who are absolutely convinced that Obama is going to ban abortion.
Seriously, what kind of head injury did you have to sustain to decide that?
I don’t know either.
Yeah, that’s bizarre, isn’t it? The psychology of conflict has generated some pretty weird beliefs about the candidates in this race.
Maybe it’s Stockholm Syndrome with the current malAdministration and its purported third term extender, Grandpa Simpson.
I don’t think he’s going to ban abortion. I’m just squidgy that he’s going to accommodate the social conservatives with things like “mandatory counselling” and forced ultrasounds and parental consent and all the little things that nibble away and make true choice more and more difficult.
All under the umbrella of being a “uniter”, of course.
Actually, I think they did it because they got burned by their Lieberman endorsement last time.
And this worked out so well for them.
A lot of people keep forgetting that this primary isn’t just the white woman vs. the black guy. It’s the DLC’s 50% 1 strategy vs. the DNC’s 50-state strategy. NARAL listened to the DLC last time and now they’re pissed that they got hoodwinked into supporting someone who’s gone over to the Republicans in all but name. So they’re rejecting the DLC candidate (Clinton) in favor of the DNC candidate (Obama). It actually makes perfect sense if you ignore the sexual and racial politics that keep getting thrown up in the media and look at the struggle within the Democratic party.
The trouble with that is, the endorsement is pretty clearly for the general election, not for the primary, because we all know the only pro-choice candidate is going to be the Dem. If it were for the primary, why wait until three weeks before the end? For that matter, given that the stated intent is to go after John McCain more effectively (because for some reason, it’s impossible to draw attention to McCain’s 0% rating without making a choice between two 100%-rated Dems with a mere three weeks to go in the voting), why not wait until there’s an actual nominee and also publicize McCain’s record?
This is just a bone-stupid move. I blame Nancy Keenan, the genius behind the Lieberman and Lincoln Chaffee endorsements. I mean, look how well those turned out for NARAL. Not to mention, the Lieberman endorsement was made not only without consulting the Connecticut affiliate, but actually over their objection, because they had a strategy with other local prochoice groups to endorse Lamont because of Lieberman’s “short ride” comments.
In this case, she decided to go ahead with the endorsement despite the board being bitterly divided, and without consulting or even notifying the local affiliates, many of whom have now had to release statements affirming their neutrality until a nominee is chosen.
Oh, and Keenan also was in charge when NARAL decided not to fight the Roberts or Alito nominations.
Sure hope she got access to that donor list of Obama’s, because that’s the only reason I can see for what she did.