NARAL Grassroots Not Happy With Obama Endorsement

by andrewalker08, Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:43:06 AM EST

Six state affiliates of NARAL Pro Choice America have distanced themselves from the national organization's endorsement of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

According to the Washington Post, "Pennsylvania, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, Texas and New York...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."  [Source:  5/15/2008 Washington Post/The Trail blog "NARAL Affiliates Question Obama Endorsement"]

From what I can gather, the NARAL state affiliates are not upset with the Obama endorsement per se.  What they're upset with is the fact that the national organization picked Obama without consulting them -- the grassroots.

Case in point, in Oregon, a state where Sen. Obama is expected to win their Democratic presidential preference primary, Michele Stranger-Hunter, the Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon issued the following statement:

"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.  We are proud to have two strongly pro-choice candidates running for President. And we look forward to supporting whoever the nominee will be and are committed to defeating Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in November."

Let that be a lesson to national organizations.

If you're going to endorse a candidate, then make sure your local affiliates are A.) consulted; and B.) behind your decision 100%.




Tags: NARAL (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 31 Comments :: Post a Comment


Tips & Recs for listening... (2.00 / 5)

...To the grassroots.


by andrewalker08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:46:45 AM EST

Another shot (none / 0)

by Clinton people at anyone who disagrees with them.

Once again, on thin evidence, A Clinton supporter minimizes the decision of a significant progressive organization.


by fladem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:28:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You call state affiliates representing... (2.00 / 2)

Nearly a quarter of NARAL's state chapters expressing their concern over not being consulted on such a major decision as a candidate endorsement "thin evidence"?

Alrighty then.


by andrewalker08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:35:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And you should try reading a bit more... (none / 0)

...Before you respond to one of my diaries.

Here's what I wrote:

"From what I can gather, the NARAL state affiliates are not upset with the Obama endorsement per se.  What they're upset with is the fact that the national organization picked Obama without consulting them -- the grassroots."

Now how is that statement minimizing "the decision of a significant progressive organization."  

I'm stating a fact that six state NARAL groups representing a quarter of NARAL Pro-Choice America's state chapters are expressing their concern about not being consulted on this endorsement.


by andrewalker08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:39:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1/4 disagree; 3/4 agree. What's the problem? (none / 0)


by dystopianfuturetoday on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:01:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1/4 disagree; 3/4 agree. What's the problem? (none / 0)

Try reading the diary again, you seem to have missed the point entirely.

Maybe just the last sentence of the diary will help:

If you're going to endorse a candidate, then make sure your local affiliates are A.) consulted; and B.) behind your decision 100%.

The decision was made without even bothering to discuss it with chapters.  That's bad form, and it's likely to tick people off.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wish someone would diary about the real problem (2.00 / 5)

with NARAL, which is Nancy Keegan. She did the same thing with the Lieberman/Lamont race, endorsing Lieberman without even notifying the CT office of their intent. The CT office was steamed, as you can imagine.

I don't have time to do a diary this morning, but I might write one this afternoon if no one else has done so. There's a real problem here, and it's with one person and her minions. NARAL needs to be saved from them.


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:52:28 AM EST

Re: I wish someone would diary (2.00 / 1)

good info, it's nice to know this wasn't a democratic decision made in consultation with 'the bottom.' Now Barack will have a chance to decline the endorsement, and ask for them to not just consult but to be led by their base, that's his philosophy of governing.  Leaders are led by the 'bottom.'  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:44:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NARAL Grassroots Not Happy With Obama Endorsem (2.00 / 3)

I'd like someone to substantively tell me why it's not appropriate for NARAL to endorse someone with a 100% pro-choice voting record.

There's a split in the reproductive rights movement that all started when the Clinton campaign dropped flyers designed to mislead people about Obama's pro-choice record.  The people in the movement who signed onto it a figurative deal with the devil.


by Jordache on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:55:25 AM EST

No one is saying NARAL's endorsement... (2.00 / 1)

...Is "not appropriate."

What the state affiliates are perturbed about is the fact that A.) they  weren't consulted before the national organization before the endorsement; and B.) now they have to defend themselves to local donors who don't necessarily agree with the national organization's decision to endorse Sen. Obama.

NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri spent money on a robo-call expressing that the NARAL Pro-Choice America's endorsement did not reflect the position of their group.

That should tell you something.


by andrewalker08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:05:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri... (2.00 / 1)

...doesn't seem to have looked at the polls lately.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:09:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri... (2.00 / 2)

Per Pollster.com McCain has a solid lead against Obama this month.
McCain leads Clinton too but within the margin of error.
Maybe NARAL Missouri was looking at more local issues.
by J Rae on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:31:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri... (none / 0)

In Missouri that is.


by J Rae on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:32:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Cherry picking (none / 0)

I'm not talking about Obama v. McCain polls, which are useless this far out anyway.

I'm talking Obama v. Clinton polls... which they're starting to stop taking, since the nomination is all but decided.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:43:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cherry picking (none / 0)

Politics is local. The state NARAL offices appear to have preferred to wait till the nomination process was over and only comment on D vs R.

When you have 2 candidates that have 100% ratings then that makes sense.

Remember that the state chapters are dependent on donations from state membership. Upsetting 50% of the membership for no purpose is kind of dumb.


by J Rae on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NARAL Grassroots Not Happy With Obama Endorsem (2.00 / 1)

Jordan,
I have been a part of the NARAL movement!

Why would it be right when there was no voting nor consultation of all NARAL chapters.

How can so called "national leaders" endorse a candidate based on votes among themselves when they clearly are aware that the "Overwhelming" Majority of NARAL members are supporting Hillary Clinton !

That's the problem !!!

Not if Obama is 100% pro-choice. hat's not the issue.  He simply is just the 2nd choice of NARAL. How gave these so called "national leaders" the okay to endorse our 2nd choice.

I got a call from 11 NARAL associates yesterday. They are furious, angry, upset.

7 of the 9 will not support Obama in the fall. pThey plan to vote for the democratic ticket except for Obama. They will not vote for anyone for President.

People keep talking about Obama's problems with working class whites & Latinos. No one is talking about his big problem with white women.


by latinfighter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:15:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton will smooth it over, I'm sure. (none / 0)

If anyone can talk some sense into them, Hillary can.

They'd be incredibly selfish and short-sighted to not vote for the pro-choice candidate or support NARAL.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:21:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you don't get it and that is okay (2.00 / 1)

but you don't get to tell women what is and is not appropriate.  


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:25:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I do get it and... (2.00 / 2)

...you don't get to tell women what is and is not appropriate, either.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:41:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And don't expect any of the Clinton (none / 0)

people to acknowledged the outrageously misleading flyers they distributed against Obama.


by fladem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Geez, they're just saving time. (2.00 / 1)

They'd have to be endorsing Obama in a month anyway, why the outrage?

As for the Lincoln Chaffee race, Chafee was a pro-choice Republican; there's definitely some strategy in making allies across party lines.

NARAL isn't a Democratic organization, it's a reproductive rights organization.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:07:22 AM EST

Once again, it's not about Obama... (2.00 / 2)

...It's about the grassroots not being consulted on a major decision such as this.


by andrewalker08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:12:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't see the problem (none / 0)

There's a national organization for a reason.  Local chapters have local concerns.  The umbrella national chapter is there to look at the big picture.

The New York NOW president who went on a rampage against Obama didn't consult with the national chapter before her diatribe, did she?  I don't think it's very efficient to have to consult with a vast national organization before doing anything.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:19:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see the problem (2.00 / 2)

Dram,

Are you part of our organization ?

If you are not, we do not need anymore surrogates!

Secondly, who gives a shit about NOW or anybody else.

What any other org does has nothing to do with ours or anybody else.

I understand you are deeply in love with Barack.

But please, leave NARAL out of your romance.

We don't need a spokesperson telling us what to do.


by latinfighter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Er... okay. (2.00 / 1)

I was under the impression that a lot of people "give a shit" about NOW.  Like... women... and men like me who care about women's rights and opportunities.

If folks don't want me commenting on these issues, they should perhaps not post about them to open forums that have comment sections.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:48:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see the problem (none / 0)

People are mojoing this crap?

latinfighter, I take it you are a NARAL member; good for you. And since you obviously believe that statements issued on behalf of NARAL by its surrogates should be vetted by the grassroots, I assume that in your statments such as "Who gives a shit about NOW or anybody else" you carry the tacit agreement of the grassroots.

Good for you.


John McCain
by Mandoliniment on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:35:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let me put it to you this way... (2.00 / 2)

...It makes it very difficult for a national organization to function if the local affiliates feel as if they aren't being consulted on major decisions.

In other words, next week is the Oregon Democratic Presidential Preference Primary.  NARAL Pro-Choice America has endorsed Sen. Obama.  NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon has not.  

Now just how is NARAL Pro-Choice America going to put their endorsement in action without the support of their local affiliate?


by andrewalker08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:26:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Easy enough (none / 0)

Present their case and ask politely?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:48:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NARAL Grassroots Not Happy With Obama Endorsem (2.00 / 2)

Well, I guess these state NARAL chapters must not be committed to the cause of reproductive rights, since they dared to disagree with the NARAL endorsement.  At least, that's what I've come to understand from reading some of the diaries at this site.

Personally, I think this endorsement was calculated to get back some of the progressive cred that NARAL lost with brain-dead decisions like the Chafee and Lieberman endorsement.  Judging by the blogosphere, it may have been a successful gambit in that regard.  But some of these progressive organizations have gotten so excited at the thought of Obama's mailing list and grassroots fundraising that they've forgotten about the downside of alienating other people along the way.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:47:11 AM EST

The backlash begins (none / 0)

I'm not surprised some of the local chapters are distancing themselves to remain neutral. It's ridiculous to endorse Obama over Hillary when Hillary has the better record of the two. For god's sake, she has worked for woman's rights around the world. The slap at Hillary, slaps every woman supporting her that has worked for woman's reproductive rights.  


by grlpatriot on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:20:15 PM EST

Re: NARAL Grassroots Not (none / 0)

The NARAL grassroots are also rebelling against leadership by the Obama crony who tried a while back to cover up his 'present' votes on abortion rights. The national director of NARAL has backed Obama from day one. What is so sad is she is dividing the pro-women's rights movement with this premature and short-sighted support for her bias.


by linfar on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:05:38 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: