On Wednesday, the NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC endorsed Sen. Barack Obama. By the time I left work eight hours later, over 1200 comments had been posted on their blog about the endorsement. Most of the early posts were negative, coming from people who were outraged that the organization had “turned its back” on Sen. Hillary Clinton and who vowed never to give money to NARAL again. Others pondered why NARAL hadn’t waited a few weeks until there was a Democratic nominee. Obama’s supporters seemed to catch wind of the fury, with many of the later posts supporting NARAL’s choice and pointing out that both candidates are pro-choice and have 100 percent scores on NARAL’s voting scorecard. Members of Congress even got into the act, with 25 congresswomen sending a letter to the organization expressing their disappointment that the endorsement came while Clinton was still in the race. EMILY’s List and the National Women’s Political Caucus also publicly expressed disappointment with NARAL’s decision.
This year’s race seems to have divided women’s organizations and put many of them in a tough position. Basically, damned if you support anybody but Hillary and damned if you don’t support Hillary (same thing, I know). NOW and EMILY’s List support Hillary (granted, EMILY’s List only supports pro-choice women candidates, so their choice was pretty clear-cut). When AAUW posed the question about a presidential endorsement on our blog earlier this year with our “Should AAUW Endorse Hillary?” post, we got a mix of comments. While some members urged us to support Hillary, most others agreed with our position of not endorsing candidates in a partisan election. And many echoed the comment that we shouldn’t endorse a woman just because she was a woman. Does it make a difference in organizations like AAUW, which has a broad policy agenda, as opposed to a single-issue organization like NARAL, whose issues obviously predominantly hit home with women?
It’s somewhat ironic that in both cases — whether it’s the two candidates or NARAL itself — the controversy is about choice. Supporters of NARAL and many other women’s organizations are committed to preserving choice in all forms — reproductive rights, career choices, educational options, etc. However, many of those who left comments on their site seemed to think Hillary was the only choice for the organization to make. Different types of choices, of course, but at the core of this argument is the freedom to choose.
What do you think? Do women’s organizations have the freedom to choose to endorse a male candidate over a female one? Will the timing of this endorsement cause further strife among a house already divided?
I’m voting for Obama. Reproductive rights and global warming are a priority. Survival.
I am so disappointed in what the DNC Rules Committee has done today, for the first time in my life I will vote Republican.
I am still very hurt and saddened that NARAL took it upon themselves to make this decision. How many other chances have they or anyone had to endorse, support and cheer on such a wonderful, smart, caring woman for president of our United States. We could have made history. She deserved to have thousands of women as her cheerleaders with banners and signs and praise for her accomplishments. She had already been bashed by the media- everywhere I looked, I was amazed and awed by the obvious negligence to accept her in the media but she was forging ahead and holding her own. DAMN MEN- DAMN NARAL. CNN or MSNBC are boycotted in my home forever. I could give a damn what they have to say. NARAL is in the same league with them. Now look at what we will have to listen to for the next 6 months with these two knotheads. I will turn my TV off. They can carry on with there BS as the men in power always have. I will never forgive NARAL. You just go right ahead. I swear, It broke my heart in a way. So sad.
I listened again tonight to the press, to the far left, radical wing of the Democratic Party, people like Rachel Maddow, telling the world how women like me (strong supporter of Hillary, never-again supporter of NARAL) will vote in November. They all seem to know, that when it comes right down to an election with Sen. Obama vs. Sen. McCain, women like me will vote for Obama. Not so fast…
I’ll say a few more words about me, so one can where I’m coming from. I’ve worked for forty years for women’s rights, especially with regard to choice, given financial support to a broad spectrum of women’s rights organizations and candidates, made personal sacrifices to help the cause and stood up for the movement when others were silent.
I’ve listen to Sen.Obama say that he’ll nominate people like Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court, because nominees like Justice Roberts are less divisive and can garner more support across the aisle in Congress. How could I support Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton, when the Supreme Court makeup is everything to the issue of choice and women’s rights?
Hillary would have been elected President in November, if not for Sen. Obama. He could easily have been the successor to Hillary in the Oval Office, had he waited and gained more experience. Instead we fell into some kind of mystical adornment by the press (and others) of Sen. Obama and then we allowed the press and left-wing blogs to execute the most blatant destruction of any candidate I’ve ever seen, when they went after Hillary.
So, how will I vote in November? I plan to draw the line in the sand right here, right now – no more exploitation of women by the press, by Sen. Obama, by anyone. The best Democrats can hope for is that I don’t vote, but if I do it will be for Sen. McCain.
“Do women’s organizations have the freedom to choose to endorse a male candidate over a female one? Will the timing of this endorsement cause further strife among a house already divided?”
I think that an organization has the freedom to choose, provided that the choice represents the voice of the members of the organization and that the choice is congruent and consistent with the principles of the organization. In NARAL’s case, I wondered if membership was consulted? The timing of NARAL’s decision was certainly cause for strife. I personally posted a note to their blog that I was horrified by their choice to endorse Senator Obama in the face of the fact that he is a relative newcomer to the choice scene while Senator Clinton had long been a supporter of choice. In my mind, EMILY’s List and NOW made better choices in choosing to support Senator Clinton. While a woman’s organization can choose to endorse a male candidate over a female candidate, it behooves the woman’s organization to think very, very carefully about doing so before it takes this action. It seems self-evident to me, if the woman is as qualified or better qualified for the endorsement of the woman’s organization, it would better serve the woman’s organization to endorse the woman.
I Still support Hillary. I think she has the courage, stamina, and experience to face Mc Cain. Besides all the primaries are not over. Other states should be able to voice their opinions too. People are in such a hurry to rush through things. This is a huge historical decision and should not be taken lightly. I think NARAL made a hasty decision and could have been more patient. This is another example of how little respect women get for the work they do.
I applaud NARAL. I made a contribution after their endorsement of Obama. This primary has gone on too long and has been too divise. Obama will soon be the winner. Mathematically Clinton cannot win. If we want a pro-choice president we had better stop in fighting and go forward together. I may also drop my membership in NOW and stop contributing to Emily’s List, even though I have been a member since it’s inception. Sure I’d like a woman president, but I would rather have a progressive president now and not risk a loss to McCain.
This is a very interesting race. I too am surprised at the endorsement but I am absolutely blown away by how many women are not voting for Hillary. You would think that a woman as experienced and connected as she is would gain the democratic women’s vote, hands down. I believe that Obama is promising big changes and a new way of leading our government. Idealism is often heartfelt and with good intention. He is a visionary and I respect that. My concern is that he will be sat down hard after being elected president. Things just aren’t as simple as he makes it sound. Talking with your enemies? It goes beyond the label of enemy and to the point of good and evil. The only way to deal with evil is to hold your ground. Obama is gaining so much support for his idealistic agenda that if he puts the right teams together, he might just pull it off if he can handle diplomatic relations appropriately. I am not willing to gamble on the safety and security of our country with a vote for Obama.
There was a time when there was no way I would have considered voting for Hillary. My intuition has always told me that she is not to be trusted. I know she has done a great deal for women but it seemed inauthentic and more self serving. This is a gut feeling I have had about her ever since I learned who she was and I cannot tell you exactly how it started. It think it goes back to her somewhat rigid persona and the fact that the whole time she was in the Whitehouse, it seemed like she would rather have been president herself. It was as if she was always vying for position. Don’t get me started on Bill. Compared to Bush, he was a knight in shining armor but I still vote for the person behind the position and he made a lot of arrogant errors in judgment that I can’t forget.
In recent months I have become much more of a Hillary fan. She has redeemed herself in my eyes in a big way. If she does not capture the democratic nomination, I know she will go on to do amazing things for women. She can run again in four years. This year, I am voting for McCain. To me, McCain is the safest bet overall which is the reason I am voting for him. The economy is going to turn around. Our enormous deficit and our position as a superpower in the world is the responsibility of our president, but the fact that we live in a country that is highly materialistic with rampant consumerism is not the fault of our president.
Rather than putting all the pressure on our president to fill all our needs, we need to look at our own behavior, how we can make a difference and who we are voting in as governors, senators, representatives and the like.
The endorsement NARAL gave Obama is more of the old, staid school. Women giving support to a man for the top position while a woman with better qualifications, with more accomplishments and a proven leader is passed over. Women are the ones with a new perspective, the ones who focus on the problem and bring diverse groups together to solve the problem and who are willing to put their neck out and take risks to bring a better world. I had hoped that a woman led group focused on women’s issues would know that women have been the leaders in teamwork, getting things done, solving problems and having a vision for tomorrow. How disappointing to know that NARAL is same old, same old support the male no matter!
Shame on you, NARAL!
Thank goodness I never joined NARAL although I recently considered it. So typical of women to stab another woman in the back even, or perhaps especially, one who has been so loyal. The Republicans will probably win in November thanks to turncoats like the leaders of NARAL. Shame on YOU!!!
People will not forget the poor treatment of Hillary by NARAL and other progressive organizations and media. Politics is supposed to be about building coalitions, not alienating.
The NARAL endorsement of Obama has taught me a lesson. If women are not going to support a female candidate, why should I? If a reproductive rights group is going to subvert their own goals then why should I care about NARAL or reproductive rights for that matter? For Nov, I am voting McCain and will rethink whether reproductive rights is even a consideration for how to vote. It may have been a sham all along. I am a lifelong Democrat and donated to McCain today.
I disagree that the outrage women felt by the NARAL endorsement had to do with gender. NARAL has endorsed many, many male elected officials over the last 30 years, and has worked ardently to defeat women candidates who are anti-choice. The reason NARAL members were furious is because Senator Clinton has been not only a good “vote” on issues involving reproductive health, but she has been a staunch leader on the issue. Just a few months ago, she was the leader in winning approval for over-the-counter access to emergency contraception, and unlike Obama, when she spoke out against the confirmations of Alito and Roberts, she specifically mentioned Roe v. Wade. Hillary Clinton has defended and advocated for our right to choose for 35 years. To endorse her opponent, who maintains a record of voting “present” on our issues 7 times, as opposed to “yes” or “no” and who has not led on the issue for as long was disrespectful. It is funny to me. Hillary supporters are not the ones who constantly bring up gender…it is everyone else. Hillary supporters fall back and rely on a 35 year record. NARAL compromised the pro-choice movement by communicating to elected officials across the country that we will not be loyal and stand with them, even when they have put their political necks on the chopping block over and over again for our rights. Additionally, it is a slap in the face to the Senator, who has worked tirelessly since Obama was in kindergarden, working to protect our right to choose. This has nothing to do with gender…it has to do with a candidate who deserved, at the very least, for the pro-choice movement to withhold an endorsement until the primary was over..
In regard to the NARAL endorsement, I need to come down on the side of first supporting “choice.” As strong a supporter as I am of reproductive rights (as a past PP staff person as well as a past national board members of PPFA), I have to agree with the suggestion by leciaimbery that the right to chose — whatever an individual’s choice may be — takes precedent in the U.S., the “land of freedom.” This should be especially true for AAUW with its non-partisan stance and a multitude of issues that affect women. (I am a past national AAUW board also and supported the decision not to go forward with an endorsement.)
As for NARAL, I don’t know what their thinking was in making their endorsement known at this point in the campaign — as an organization, they only stand to lose support for their fine work, and do not help the Obama campaign now, which for all apparent reasons will be the nominee. An endorsement in the general campaign will mean much more — and I certainly hope that those women’s organizations which have been supporting Senator Clinton will do the same, and with enthusiasm. That choice seems mighty clear.
Man, I feel about this election the same way I felt about the Vietnam War – very torn. I started out completely pro-Hillary but now I’m sitting on the fence. There are many things she’s said that have rankled and, while I’d like to see our first woman President, I’m not sure she’s the one. I’m afraid of Obama too – I don’t like the whole Wright business and I’m just not sure that he’s got the right kind of experience. I don’t feel that women’s organizations have to endorse Hillary just because she’s a woman. If a woman candidate for ANY office does not adequately represent the goals of the organization, then the organization should not endorse her.