-
BlogHer Ad Network More from BlogHer Advertise here BlogHer Privacy Policy -
"In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist." --Gloria Steinem
-
"No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body." --Margaret Sanger
May
14
You’ve Got To Be Kidding Me
Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, abortion, feminism, politics, reproductive justice, women’s health | Posted by Cara |
I just got this press release in my inbox.
The National Women’s Political Caucus is disappointed to learn of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s endorsement of Senator Obama today. The Caucus knows Hillary Clinton to be a clear leader and a consistent champion of the issues that NARAL and NWPC have in common. We believe that this announcement at this time will divide the choice community at a time when we need to stand united.
As a lawyer, advocate, First Lady, and Senator, Hillary Clinton has stepped up and stood out on matters important to women. When it comes to each woman’s ability to make the most personal of life decisions, Hillary has been a consistent and reliable advocate for a woman’s right to choose. In fact, she has received numerous awards from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
Senator Clinton condemned the Supreme Court’s April 2007 decision to allow the government to dictate to women what they can and cannot do about their own health.
She has championed the Prevention First Act, which expands access to family planning services for low income women.
She is an original co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, federal legislation that would guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women.
In partnership with Senator Murray, Senator Clinton waged a successful battle to get the Food and Drug Administration to make Plan B (the “morning after” pill) available over the counter. This was one of the biggest accomplishments of the pro-choice advocacy community in years.
Senator Clinton made it very clear when she stood on the Senate floor to voice her opposition to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito that one of her major concerns was to keep intact Roe v. Wade. While Senator Obama was also opposed to the nomination of Roberts and Alito, he never mentioned the preservation of Roe v. Wade.
NWPC members in 30 chapters throughout the country join me to say that we are disappointed to learn of NARAL’s endorsement of Senator Obama, and that we stand firm in our support and commitment to the candidacy of Senator Hillary Clinton for President.
Right. I’m glad that you support her. That doesn’t mean you get to control the endorsements that other organizations make for another pro-choice candidate. And of course, nothing in the letter explains why Clinton is a better candidate than Obama — they just state that she has a pro-choice record. Which is absolutely true. So does Obama. And if we want to criticize either of them on statements they’ve made about choice, it’s not hard to do. If need be, I can rattle off a few blunders by each candidate off the top of my head.
But here’s what pisses me off: this stuff about how NARAL’s endorsement will “divide the choice community.” No, it won’t. I can’t find anything even remotely disrespectful of Clinton here. Or here. In fact, both pieces note that she too is a strong pro-choice candidate. Something that NWPC didn’t choose to do with Obama. If an organization simply and respectfully stating its preference for a candidate who supports its issues — like say, NWPC did — is going to “divide the movement,” that’s the choice of those who disagree with the endorsement. And if supporting different candidates divides the movement, guess what, unobservant folk — we were already divided.
What will actually divide “the choice community” (a term that I don’t even like, btw) is shit like this, suggesting that one’s support of a different pro-choice candidate makes them a bad reproductive rights advocate. Guess what? I’m not. Neither are other Obama supporters.
And neither are Clinton supporters. NWPC, I’m glad that you like your candidate and have decided to stand behind her. Good for you. You are entitled to your opinion, and Clinton is a pro-choice candidate. I certainly can’t criticize you on that basis. I do disagree with your endorsement overall, but it’s your choice to make.
See how easy it is to say that you disagree without wagging your finger at the people who are on your side? Try it sometime. Because all of this bitterness and infighting has not been caused by the fact that different people support different candidates. It has been caused by people who think that they have a right to tell others how to vote and then launch this kind of vague yet ominous criticism when the orders aren’t followed. Emily’s List is in on the act, too. I’m sick of it, I’m pissed off about it, I’m done with it, and I’d be very pleased — and this applies to both camps — if I could stop seeing it in my inbox. Send it to someone else.
Popularity: 19% [?]
Comments
12 Comments so far
-
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." —Margaret Mead
-
"Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less." -- Susan B. Anthony
I read every post you write, but I never comment. Just wanna say today that you absolutely rock. Thank you for spreading sense across the internet.
I was irritated by NARAL’s endorsement for the same reasons these press releases irritated you. NARAL’s endorsement didn’t explain why Obama was a better pro-choice candidate than HRC, it simply suggested that the primaries needed to be over in order to focus on McCain. NARAL doesn’t need to support a specific Democratic candidate in order to point out how utterly awful McCain is on reproductive rights, so this endorsement for the stated reasons sounded more like subtle criticism of HRC for continuing to run. This sort of thing doesn’t have any bearing on NARAL’s commitment to pro-choice positions, but it does divide NARAL from HRC supporters who don’t enjoy being told they should just give up because if they don’t, they’re hurting the cause.
Actually, I was disappointed with NARAL’s choice, too. I’m a Hillary supporter, and I don’t really understand why it’s important at this point in the primary for NARAL to come out in support of either candidate, considering that they’re both supporters of women’s rights.
It seems to me like endorsements like this right after Hillary’s landslide victory in West Virginia are sort of mean-spirited towards her. If I were affiliated with her campaign, I’d probably be on the defensive, too.
And honestly, it DOES make me like Obama a little bit less. So although you may not think this kind of mean-spirited (in my opinion) endorsement of Obama will divide the community, I think it will. It definitely did for me.
I really dont understand the irrational attitudes of many Clinton or Obama supporters. For them it goes beyond elucidating why their person is better and goes into a battle of personal reflections.
I refuse to support a candidate simply because she’s a woman. I didnt fall in line behind the republican woman who ran in 96 (cant remember name right now) and I wont fall in line behind Clinton simply because she’s a woman either.
So if senator clinton wants my vote, she’s got to tell me why, beyond the BS of “we’ve got to stick together because we’re both women” crap.
Too many of her older supporters have this insane idea that she’s somehow “entitled” to the presidency because of all the crap she took from Bill Clinton’s affair or because she’s “already had executive experience” vis a vis the first lady role. I think its pretty obvious she ran her campaign that way too, assuming that Obama posed no challenge to her and that she would sweep him out by Super Tuesday.
How furious must Clinton be that a previously unknown black man in a racist country is beating her at her own game! I bet she’s blowing steam every day about it.
In terms of pro-choice, I think its clear that Clinton has moved to the right of Obama on this issue. She’s made multiple speeches about how “abortion is a tragedy that should be rare” crap. She does have a longer record on pro-choice than Obama does, but in terms of their current stance on the issue, its obvious that Clinton is trying to pander to conservatives whereas Obama has stayed more true to his liberal roots.
I know this may seem like a “petty” point, but why didn’t NARAL get input from NYS NARAL? Seems like a “slap in the face” to ignore one of your biggest states…
Napthia & Alex,
McCain is starting to campaign on a platform of over turning Roe v. Wade. Do you get how bad that is?
I know everyone wants to give HRC every chance…but this primary is over. If we don’t turn our attention to McCain, in four years Roe may be gone.
But right now many feminists in the dem party are so angry that HRC is losing [and at the blatant misogyny she's faced] that they are considering voting for MCCAIN as a protest. NARAL’s endorsement serves as a reminder that on the issues most dear to the feminist heart, Obama is better than McCain.
Had they withheld the endorsement until August (which now appears to be when this thing will be officially over) they would only have 2 months to convince feminists that a vote for McCain would be a complete disaster.
What this says to me is the NARAL has a good grasp on tactics and strategy, while NWPC and EMILY’s list do not. First, if we want to win the election and have influence with the winner, it is time to endorse that winner and work with them. “Making a statement” by supporting the losing candidate (and weakening support for the Democratic nominee) does not make strategic sense if we A) want a Democrat to win and B) want access to that Democrat when he gets into office.
Clinton mathematically cannot win. That means the race is between Obama and McCain. Supporting Clinton at this point weakens Obama by increasing the resentment against him among her supporters. McCain would overturn Roe vs. Wade, so if we want to preserve abortion rights, it’s damn important that Obama wins this election. It’s a pretty simple decision, in my view.
I’m going to go give a donation to NARAL.
But the thing is that NARAL didn’t have to say why Obama was a better candidate than Clinton. They weren’t criticizing Clinton or any endorsement of her. That’s the different. NWPC didn’t just reiterate their point that they supported Hillary — which would have been fine. If they just sent out a release that said “in light of NARAL’s endorsement of Senator Obama, we would like to restate our support for Senator Clinton” with the rest of the letter being the same, there wouldn’t have been a problem. But they reiterated their support and criticized an endorsement of another candidate. Endorsing a candidate and criticizing those who are voting for another one are vastly different things. Hugely.
You may feel that they subtly said that. I don’t. But the thing that we both know for sure and that is not up for interpretation is that NWPC said so explicitly.
But why is it mean-spirited? Isn’t it nicer to do it while she’s on a high note, as opposed to right after she lost NC by a landslide? If they endorsed Obama then, they would have been accused of kicking her while she’s down. The point being is that what people are objecting to is the support of another candidate, period.
Did you feel that it was inappropriate for NOW to endorse Clinton? Like you said, Obama is a supporter of women’s rights as well. Should they have stayed out of it? If you do, then fine, you’re being perfectly fair. If you don’t, it begs the question over you’re upset over an endorsement or an endorsement of a particular candidate.
Did they not get that kind of input? I haven’t heard that so far. But again — and I hate to keep harping on NOW, but it’s an excellent point for comparison — not all of their chapters supported Clinton. Many have endorsed Obama. They weren’t thrilled either. But that’s what happens when you work for an organization that has chapters/affiliates. I know because I do. Everyone gets their own degree of independence. And it’s not fair to assume that what NY NARAL think is the same was what NARAL’s national organization thinks, or vice versa.
I do of course agree with Kristen’s point. I think that Obama will be the nominee, and the Democratic party seems to think that Obama will be the nominee. That doesn’t mean I’m requesting that Clinton pull out — since she lost NC, she seems to have backed off of her attacks on Obama that could hurt him in the general. And so if that’s the kind of campaign she wants to run, I have no personal problem with her staying in (and of course it was never up to me to begin with). But doesn’t mean that the rest of us should have to sit around in respectful silence when we have an election in less than 6 months or otherwise be branded as back-stabbers. And I don’t really think it’s fair to criticize others for recognizing this.
Honestly, I question any women’s rights organization’s choice of endorsing a political candidate during a primary, especially late in a primary, and especially when both are strong candidates to promote women’s rights. So yes, I do think it was unnecessary for NOW to have endorsed Clinton (although since she’s my chosen candidate, I was obviously happy to see them supporting HRC).
Also, yes, I do think the “mean-spirited” thing is important — if Barack is going to end up being the Dem nominee anyway, why not just wait a few weeks and endorse him then? I realize this election is unlike any other in a lot of ways, but still. Why even risk dividing the Democratic party further if your goal is to help the Dem nominee (whoever it is) beat John McCain? I don’t really see it taking very long to unite Democrats behind whichever candidate ends up being the nominee, provided we stop pissing each other off RIGHT NOW by choosing sides between Clinton and Obama.
(Also, to Kristen: Please don’t tell me you’re thinking that I don’t get how bad McCain is for women’s rights simply because I was disappointed in NARAL’s endorsement of Obama. That’s oversimplifying by quite a bit, and I wasn’t saying that I would’ve preferred NARAL to have backed Clinton. I’m saying endorsements at this point in the game are not very strategic, in my opinion.)
The fact that we’re having this back and forth right now and are feeling compelled to defend our viewpoints is proof to me that the endorsements aren’t helping either of our potential Democratic nominees.
I completely agree with you. Obma has a pristine pro-choice record. He’s absolutely 100%. He’s even writing the new affordable birth control bill. The reality of the situation is what was so elegantly displayed in a comment on another of your posts. He’s unqualified because he’s the owner of a penis. Last time I checked, proponents of equality are supposed to get beyond that. The very idea of Emily’s List upsets me. I get that women are a small portion of elected officials. But I don’t think that being a woman in any way makes you the best candidate for the job, and I really think they need to revisit their priorities.
Brenna, I actually think that making sure women are represented in government (along with all other groups) is very important. What I don’t agree with is necessarily supporting any progressive female candidate over any male candidate, regardless of other factors.
[...] 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 [...]