Tell NARAL They're Wrong

When I was a girl my mom and I drove 6 hours from Detroit to Chicago to help lobby for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.

When I moved to the DC area some 24 years ago, I didn't waste any time in getting involved with the progressive causes.  With the national headquarters of so many great groups here in our area, it was easy to volunteer and feel like I was making a difference.  One of those groups was NARAL - then called the National Abortion Rights Action League.

I'd show up every Wednesday evening to hang out in the conference room, go through "hate mail" and visit with friends.  We had a great group of folks - and it was kind of funny to see what some of the anti's sent back in NARAL's pre-paid mailers.  The idea was to weed out addresses from the mailing list so the group wouldn't waste money on them once we id'd them as anti's.  They got pretty creative actually - more than once we'd open the envelope to find a squished frog or something equally gross.  Another time someone sent the envelope back taped to a brick - running up the postage charged to the group.

I also showed up to help with national marches, and was a regular at clinic defenses when we got word that the anti's would try to shut down a clinic - especially on January 22nd, when they turned up in DC for their annual march.  The idea was to keep it open so patients could get in for their appointments - most of whom were there for check-ups, advice re birth control or cancer screenings etc.  So we'd act as escorts or legal observers.  We'd ring the door to the clinic to keep the anti's from gaining control of the entrance and shutting it down.  It got kind of comical at times really - we'd set up a ring and then the anti's would set one up in front of us.  Then we'd block them off so more anti's couldn't get in to add to their ranks.  Layer of us - layer of them - layer of us and so on...  to the point where it looked like a rainbow.

I remember one clinic defense where we'd formed so many rings that ours was eventually out to the edge of the building.  I was right near the corner and facing the outside, and an anti decided to park himself in front of me and started talking at me.

Where could I go?  My arms were linked to other defenders on either side of me - I was stuck.  Thankfully this guy was fairly reasonable and we struck up a conversation.  At one point he said god was anti choice (he didn't use that term btw) and god was never wrong.  So I asked him something he never could answer - and no one's been able to answer since...

If god is never wrong then why did he give us the intellect and curiosity to discover ways to safely terminate a pregnancy?  AND why did he put me on this earth - a pretty smart and PRO-CHOICE woman who's active in defending my reproductive rights?

Crickets.

Things suddenly got nuts and folks began pushing us.  I ended up getting jammed up against the corner of the building by my new buddy - my spine slamming against the bricks - and I ended up on my knees in pain.  Well I guess that's one way to get a "heathen" on her knees right?  So much for compassion and love for all living things.

I don't lay all this out to brag about what I've done to defend my and my daughter's reproductive rights (what little we have left) but to explain why I'm so saddened outraged over NARAL's endorsement of Sen. Obama over Hillary today.  I feel betrayed - big time.

Hillary's record on defending and fighting for our reproductive rights is unparalleled.  She's fought for access to the morning after pill and other contraception for women serving in our military.  She's held up presidential appointments until we got an answer from the FDA on Plan B.  She's gone to bat for us more times than I can count and she isn't done yet.  In January she proposed her new Agenda for Reproductive Health Care, in which she maps out what she hopes to do going forward in fighting for our rights.  She's not just talking the talk guys - she's walking the walk with this one...

"When I'm President, I will appoint judges to our courts who understand that Roe v. Wade isn't just binding legal precedent, it is the touchstone of our reproductive freedom, the embodiment of our most fundamental rights, and no one - no judge, no governor, no Senator, no President - has the right to take it away."

The agenda includes preventing unintended pregnancies by increasing access to honest, accurate sex education, contraception and family planning services, ensuring that private health plans offer the same level of coverage for contraception as they do for other prescription drugs and services, ensuring that women who survive sexual assault have access to emergency contraception upon request. Clinton also calls for providing greater access to reproductive health care services overseas.

WCLA joins other prominent pro-choice organizations endorsing Hillary Clinton for President, including the National Organization for Women PAC, EMILY's List, Women's Campaign Forum, National Women's Political Caucus, Women's Political Committee.

Hillary has been a leading advocate for the right of every woman to make the most personal of life decisions for years. She believes the right to privacy is a fundamental right, and that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Her views on reproductive rights were informed by seeing what happens when the government gets involved in these decisions. As First Lady, Hillary traveled to Romania where, under a Soviet-style dictatorship, the government had controlled every aspect of women's reproductive health by eliminating birth control, sex education and abortion and requiring humiliating government-controlled monthly exams, in order to compel every woman to bear five children and build the Romanian state. Hillary saw the other extreme in China, with its one birth policy, under which women could be sterilized or forced to have an abortion if they got pregnant for a second time. Hillary took those lessons to heart.

In the Senate, she has been an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration's relentless and insidious attempts to undermine Roe and has been on the forefront of the major victories on behalf of the pro-choice community in recent years. In the Senate, Hillary waged a three-year effort, along with Senator Patty Murray, to get the FDA to accept the overwhelming recommendation of the medical community and approve emergency contraception for over-the-counter sales. She also helped craft a winning strategy to put the right wing on the defensive by highlighting their opposition to contraception, a position that is way out of the mainstream in the U.S. Hillary championed the Prevention First Act, which expands access to contraception for women of all income levels, and provides for honest and complete sex education programs. As President, Hillary will be vigilant in ensuring that each woman maintains the right to plan her own family and protect her reproductive health.

This announcement of NARAL's just doesn't make sense.  A friend of mine wrote to her state's NARAL affiliate and she got a note back saying they didn't have any input into this decision.  None was solicited.  The national political PAC made the call on their own - not sure why.  But as a longtime supporter and activist of NARAL's, I feel betrayed.  I really do.  Here we have a supremely capable and qualified woman running for President - a woman who's stood up for our rights for decades here at home and around the world and NARAL decides to back her opponent in this race?

WTF?

Now back when I volunteered for NARAL they were called the National Abortion Rights ACTION League.  Not sure what they hell they're calling themselves now (NARAL ProChoice America?) but given that they're backing a guy who voted PRESENT on key votes re our reproductive rights in the IL legislature it's no wonder they dropped the ACTION bit from their name.  It's all about CYA and wait & see with them - notice they stayed on the sidelines until they figured BO was a sure bet?

Why they couldn't have waited another three weeks to let this primary season play out is a whole other question.

Here's a bit of history on NARAL from Wiki

The group was founded in 1968 by Bernard Nathanson, Larry Lader and Betty Friedan as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. Bernard Nathanson, like Sandra Cano a.k.a. "Mary Doe," is now a vocal pro-life activist. After Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to privacy in reproductive decisions including abortion, it changed its name to National Abortion Rights Action League, then to National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League, and in 2003 dropped the long form in favor of "NARAL Pro-Choice America."

(BTW - when I volunteered at a big NARAL celebration to mark their 20th anniversary, I had the honor of meeting Betty Friedan. I wonder what she'd have to say about today's endorsement).

This wiki article notes that NARAL was one of the many sponsors of the 2004 March for Women's Lives.  Hubby and I took our kids down to this march.  Our son was just 19 months old at the time and rode in the stroller, so hubby turned the stroller into a little float, taping a Catholics for Free Choice poster to the front of it.  (We're not Catholics but hubby grew up in Ireland and I think he liked the idea of sticking it to the priests back home who ruled with a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude).  After just a few hours at the march and in parading down Pennsylvania Avenue, we lost count of the number of folks who stopped our little family to take a picture of the kids with that poster.  Another family for choice.

Now as some of you might recall, NARAL raised more than a little ire when they jumped into the political fray a couple years back, by endorsing a couple Republicans in the 2006 elections.  This was a year we were fighting to retake control of congress and many governorships around the country.  More from Wiki...

NARAL Pro-Choice America and its affiliates have been criticized by some abortion political activists, both for supporting pro-choice Republicans such as Lincoln Chafee and Michael Bloomberg

Now I was blogging on DailyKos back then and there was an absolute uproar over these endorsements.  One diary after another - not to mention multiple front page posts - were put up decrying these endorsements every day, with the diarists declaring that NARAL is dead to me! Hundreds of comments would follow.  I not only refused to chime in on the side of the condemners - but I actually defended NARAL.  As a former volunteer and long time activist for our reproductive rights, I just wasn't ready to admit that they'd let us down with those endorsements.

Looking back though I see what Markos and the rest of the folks there were saying.  They were fighting (as was I) to help elect enough DEMOCRATS to retake control of one or both houses in Congress.  But thinking back, with the razor thin majority in the Senate, if NARAL had gotten their wish and Chaffee had won, we'd be dealing with a Republican controlled Senate right now.  NARAL didn't have to endorse anyone in those two races - they could have stayed out of them and focused on the many other contests around the country.  

Come to think of it - before that (before Roe) they were known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.  Maybe today's endorsement signals a return to that name eh?  Because if Obama's our nominee you can bet your @ss we'll see McCain in the WH and anti-choice justices nominated / appointed to the Supreme Court and the lower courts.  This will - in effect, wipe out everything we've gained in our reproductive rights since Jan. 22, 1973.  Intended or not, today's endorsement could well lead to the repeal of what few laws are on the books protecting our right to choose.

Mission accomplished!

Hmm.  So yeah - to that Tell NARAL They're Wrong bit noted in the title of tonight's post...

I got an email from someone today and they had a great idea.  She's asking everyone to let NARAL know just how pissed we are over this betrayal (and we DO feel betrayed trust me) by donating the equivalent of a year's membership to NARAL.  So if you're currently a member or were thinking of joining NARAL, send the money to Hillary instead you guys.  Help put a powerful pro-choice candidate in the White House - someone who can and WILL beat John McCain in the general election - and make sure our rights are protected.  Advanced even.

Membership levels are at $35, $50, $75 or $100.

Leadership Circle membership levels are at $100, $250, $500 and $1,000.

If it's done via our HillRaisers account we can track things and maybe update NARAL as to how many of us have walked away from them forever over this betrayal.

So here's the thing - donate and include an extra 44 cents to signify WHY you're doing it. I'll tally things up pass the info on - let NARAL know what they've lost and maybe let the campaign know why we're supporting Hillary with a donation now.

       
 

After you donate come back and tell us about your history herstory of working to defend our reproductive rights.

Tags: 2008 elections, abortion, Birth Control, Hillary Clinton, NARAL, president, Reproductive Rights, Women (all tags)

Comments

412 Comments

Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Tell us your story re your work to defend our right to choose.

by alegre 2008-05-14 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

By the way - you don't wanna see what I replied with when NARAL sent out their little announcement.

by alegre 2008-05-14 07:27PM | 0 recs
You put a frog in the envelope?

by benmasel 2008-05-14 08:09PM | 0 recs
Who did you mail a frog to in the 70's?

This has the potential to be very entertaining, I think.

by bobdoleisevil 2008-05-14 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Who did you mail a frog to in the 70's?

No i wont do that. I'll send them money thanking them for supporting Obama!

by anujtron 2008-05-14 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Who did you mail a frog to in the 70's?

Me too.  Since I already donate, I'll double it and tell them why.

by Agent77 2008-05-14 10:01PM | 0 recs
I'll take this month's

Obama donation and give it to NARAL to offset some of this silliness.

by bookish 2008-05-15 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

"Help put a powerful pro-choice candidate in the White House - someone who can and WILL beat John McCain in the general election - and make sure our rights are protected.  Advanced even."

So are you arguing that Obama isn't pro-choice alegre?

by Yalin 2008-05-14 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I took her to be arguing that Clinton is "someone who can and WILL beat John McCain in the general election" while Obama is not.

I don't agree, but it isn't an offensive claim to make. I was pretty glad she didn't make the offensive claim you interpreted her as making.

by letterc 2008-05-14 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

That's why I'm asking, because there was a time when the Clinton campaign was sending out mailers that stated, falsely, that Obama was in fact anti-choice.

So I'm just making sure more than anything else.

by Yalin 2008-05-14 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Well, he sure as hell ain't  "pro-choice."  

From Illinois NOW:

"As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted `present' on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills.  In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass. He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now."

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

PLANNED FUCKING PARENTHOOD ASKED HIM TO DO THAT.

Please stop lying.  Please, just please stop lying.

Can you stop lying?  Is it in you to stop lying?

Any chance you might stop lying?  Could you?  Maybe?

No?  Still gonna lie?

Okay then.  Just checking.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-14 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

The National Organization for Women in his home state said this about Obama, and they're telling  the truth. Voting "present" was a cop out.

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose. IL NOW knew that those bills were unacceptable to women. Except for these present votes, Senator Obama's record on choice has been excellent, but he has not taken leadership on the issue at the same level that Hillary has.

Ms. Brett asserts that the strategy to vote "present" was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted "no" with little negative consequence in his district.

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

So, uh, you gonna quote Planned Parenthood from IL or not?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-14 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

So, uh, you gonna quote Planned Parenthood from IL or not?

So, uh, you gonna defend voting "present" or not?

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Sure.  Did the bill pass?  Did his actions hurt anybody?

What about the votes Hillary has missed in the Senate whilst campaigning?

Look, if you want to say that he's perhaps somewhat less zealous on the symbolism than some other politicians?  I might concede that point.

If you infer from those "present" votes a lack of committment on the issue, then you frankly have far more powers of telepathy than I do.

Answer my question.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-14 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Voting on issues relating to the reproductive rights of women isn't "symbolism." They can literally be life and death issues, which affirms your appalling ignorance of this issue AND your candidate.

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

It is symbolism if the vote of an individual candidate had no fucking effect on the outcome, and he or she knew it at the time.

Seriously, get off your high horse and join the rest of us on the ground.  He isn't out to take away your right to an abortion!

JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN THE THIRD IS.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-14 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

It is symbolism if the vote of an individual candidate had no fucking effect on the outcome, and he or she knew it at the time.

Right. Just like your guy's speech on Iraq was symbolism and had no fucking effect on the outcome, and he knew it at the time.

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I'll take that over Hillary's effect on the outcome of Iraq any day.  Seriously, I wish Hillary just made a speech and left it at that.  Instead, she voted to give George Bush the power to go to war, and voted against every amendment which would have restrained that power.

The disingenuousness of your line of attack -- completely ignoring that Barack Obama's "present" strategy was coordinated with the state's planned parenthood is so blatantly transparent its kind of embarrassing.

If Hillary had shown judgment and leadership in 2002, if she had worked with opponents of the war in Iraq to formulate a strategy for preventing it, if she had had the courage to speak out against against it and mean it, maybe she wouldn't have lost this nomination fight.  

And yes, she has.

by Pragmatic Left 2008-05-15 03:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

/And your candidate's VOTE on Iraq was not symbolic and had a HUGE fucking effect on the outcome and she knew it at the time..

How did Hillary's vote affect the outcome of the AUMF vote? By your logic, her AUMF vote was the very definition of symbolic.

by Inky 2008-05-15 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

And for god's sake, STOP IMPUTING the words of Obama supporters to Obama.

I don't think that Senator Clinton believes every retarded thing one of you people post.  I'm not dumb enough to have that kind of logical failure.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-14 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Yep... words like "retarded," dumb" and "logical failure" pretty much sum up your arguments.

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

tick, tick, tick, tick, tick,

by hootie4170 2008-05-14 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

According to the Illinois Planned Parenthood:

Seven other times, he voted that way as part of a broad strategy devised by abortion rights advocates to counter anti-abortion bills.

Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Mr. Obama was one of the senators with a strong stand for abortion rights whom the organization approached about using the strategy. Ms. Sutherland said the Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes.

Ms. Sutherland said Mr. Obama had initially resisted the strategy because he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures.

"He said, `I'm opposed to this,'" she recalled.

But the organization argued that a present vote would be difficult for Republicans to use in campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts who favored abortion rights.

Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general who was in the Illinois Senate with Mr. Obama from 1998 through 2002, said she and Mr. Obama voted present on the anti-abortion bills.

"It's just plain wrong to imply that voting present reflected a lack of leadership," Ms. Madigan said. "In fact, it was the exact opposite."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/pol itics/20cnd-obama.html?pagewanted=print

by laird 2008-05-14 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

According to Illinois NOW

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose.

Ms. Brett asserts that the strategy to vote "present" was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted "no" with little negative consequence in his district.

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Sorry, but NOW lost me earlier in this primary when their NY State chapter excoriated Kennedy for endorsing Obama... publicly with a wink and a nod to Chappaquiddick while they were at it....  It was quid pro quo language and was an awful read...

Sen. Kennedy has been one of the most stalwart supporters of abortion rights.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-15 04:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Stop lying.

He went to them, not the other way around.  Typical Obama always looking to someone else to cover for him.

by bellarose 2008-05-15 03:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

by Mandoliniment 2008-05-14 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

This lady has a HUGE credibility problem:

Ms. Brett is misleading people and using her very old affiliation with NOW to help distance Senator Obama from his vote of present on key bills and as a platform for her personal criticism of Senator Hillary Clinton.

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate. Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose....

Ms. Brett asserts that the strategy to vote "present" was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted "no" with little negative consequence in his district.

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

There's nothing she says that NOW refutes.

NOW has a bigger credibility problem - they signed off on literature stating that Obama's present votes were anti-choice.  A "present" vote in the Illinois legislature is functionally the same as a no vote.  Yet NOW lied about it.

by Agent77 2008-05-14 10:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

No, you have a credibility problem.

Here is a letter from the CEO of Chicago Area Planned Parenthood backing up her statement:

http://ppaurora.blogspot.com/2008/02/set ting-record-straight-illinois-nows.html

by Pragmatic Left 2008-05-15 03:28AM | 0 recs
Tell ALEGRE & IL NOW they are Wrong

Educate yourself on both sides of the story.

http://ppaurora.blogspot.com/2008/02/set ting-record-straight-illinois-nows.html

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/

This has already been debunked, please see the following thread

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/7/23 5444/7593/106#106

You may not agree, but if it were not for these particular present votes, there is a strong likelihood that more legislation that reigns in a woman's right to chose would have passed due to the loss of democrats that this strategy gave cover to in heavy republican districts.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans (who had control of the IL senate) were putting measures out there that had no chance of passing just to play gotcha with democrats in conservative districts.  This was an effort that was orchestrated with the main goal of retaining Republican control and eventually passing some of the measures.

This was also an attempt to divide the electorate and demoralize Democrats.

So when Planned Parenthood came up with this strategy and Obama got on board with it (he is from a safe district, but he could help the afore mentioned Democrats a way to not vote no on issues that would be used against them while insuring that the measures would still not pass since only an affirmative votes will pass legislation).

Well it worked much to the chagrin of IL NOW (Who opposed it, but had prominent people from the organization approved of the method).

The IL senate is now controlled by the Democrats, Obama sat in the committee that held considerations for these types of measures and quashed any such measures from even getting out to the floor for a vote.

For all of this work Obama has a 100% rating with many Pro-Choice groups.

Now you want to tell me that this was a bad thing?

You want to tell me that Obama is not 100% Pro-Choice?

This is an argument that defies reason.

You can object to the method which they employed, but you cannot argue with the results.  This was as clear a victory for the Pro-Choice movement as I have seen in quite some time.  

Why try to besmirch it for the crass political gain of one person when it debases the entire community of people, who for the most part, hold the very same values on the question of a woman's right to chose?

by Why Not 2008-05-14 11:04PM | 0 recs
Actually Planned Parenthood didn't ask him

to do that. Obama approached Planned Parenthood and proposed the strategy. This myth that Planned Parenthood approached Obama had been propagating through the internet especially in DailyKos Blog. Yes, however it is true that Planned Parenthood worked with him on the strategy to protect moderate Democrats. However this doesn't explain why he had to vote present. Note Sutherland's last statement "it's also not a 'yes' vote.".

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2007/07/obama-abortion-.html

Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood's national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.

"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,'" said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted.

While Sutherland was happy to give Obama latitude in voting "present," rather than "no," she was quick to note that "it's also not a 'yes' vote."


by louisprandtl 2008-05-14 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually Planned Parenthood didn't ask him

If this is true, then even more credit should go to Obama for devising a legislative procedure to help Planned Parenthood by getting a majority for the Democrats in the IL Senate.

I do not presume to tell you that you are not correct about this, but if true it makes his political prowess in defending women's reproductive rights all the more illustrious.

by Why Not 2008-05-14 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I'll Answer That

No, this poster will not stop lying about and misrepresenting Obama's record.  It's what this poster does.  This poster is either consciously lying or so caught up in intraparty partisanship that s/he cannot overcome his/her cognitive dissonance about Obama and Clinton.

by deminva 2008-05-15 05:11AM | 0 recs
But SusanHu was saying he was so

pro-choice that he even supported live-birth abortion?

Which is it?

by bobdoleisevil 2008-05-14 08:11PM | 0 recs
Plus - BO thinks a choice decision...

should be "between a woman (check); her doctor (check), her family (er, maybe the father who raped her?); and her clergy (dooh!  NO!)".  (His answer from a January debate...where he never said, "Yes, I support choice.")

Who's next, the mailman and neighbor next door?

He waffles as usual so no one can tell for sure where he stands.

I prefer to go with what I know.  HILLARY CLINTON FOR POTUS!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-14 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Plus - BO thinks a choice decision...

Nailed it:

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass. He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now." -- Illinois N.O.W. President

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 08:23PM | 0 recs
NOW has been acting

as a Hillary surrogate this election. They are highly partisan .... why else would they attack Ted Kennedy for his Obama endorsement.

Fair minds would take their statements with a grain of salt.

by JoeCoaster 2008-05-15 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

C'mon Clintonistas, you're smarter than this. We've been over this, this was a procedural move to actually support choice.

by MNPundit 2008-05-14 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

That line is pure bullshit, and you know it.

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose.

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

You are the most intellectually dishonest person on this site.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-14 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong
There's something wrong with that person; I have no clue what, but anybody who behaves that way has some real problems. I had a long back and forth with him or her a few days ago. I kept trying to have a real debate about something, with each of us arguing our points, back and forth, but he (she) just kept telling me that he (she?) was right and I should find the proof to back up his (her) claims myself: "I won't do your homework for you," was the refrain. This was usually followed by some charge that I was ignorant or lazy.
I feel sorry for somebody like that. Life must have done a number on anybody who turns out as bitter and angry as this person seems to be.
by Mumphrey 2008-05-15 04:54AM | 0 recs
Please don't diminish the impact

of the word "intellectual" by using any of its variations in the same breath as mentioning...

by bookish 2008-05-15 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Liar.

by bellarose 2008-05-15 04:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Liar!  You know what you are saying is false. I know because I have seen you shown the links over and over and yet you repeat the same lie.  If you have to lie it's because you lost that point in the debate.  Hang it up already.

by lockewasright 2008-05-14 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

It's not worth it.  KnowVox posts the same stuff over and over and over.  Shows no interest in dialog.  Just, what part of Illinois NOW says something stoopid do you not understand?

It is fascinating, though, to see all those misleading smears posted right after NARAL endorsed BO.  

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-14 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Noooo... I'm arguing that he can't beat McCain.

by alegre 2008-05-14 08:10PM | 0 recs
And therefore,

if you are wrong about Clinton winning the nomination, are you open to the possibility that you're wrong about Obama being able to beat McCain?

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-14 08:14PM | 0 recs
I do not know if she will answer that...

...but I must say.  Very interesting question.

I have found so much of the "electability" argument (and I learned this the hard way with Kerry) to be wildly subjective.  So much so that I will dismiss anyone who makes that claim because it almost ALWAYS comes from an extremely biased position (and I dare say an indication of the strongest bias when someone resorts to "electability" as their cheif argument)

I'm not saying people aren't entitled to have a bias.  But electability is usually represented as being some objective measurement and it just ISN'T.

by DawnG 2008-05-14 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I do not know if she will answer that...

The thing is, electability is by its very nature a product of the actions of the electorate (thats us).  Obama is immensely electable if the Dems stay unified and fired up.  Pessimistic talk about certain failure have the power to become a self fulfilling prophecy.  I've actually seem some people on this (and other forums) argue the following circular chain of thought.

1. Your candidate is unelectable, thus

2. You are betraying the Democrats by supporting him/her, therefor

3. If he/she gets the nomination I will give up on Democrats in disgust, and

4. Stay home or vote for McCain in protest

Weird.  Fortunately, I think these people are a rather small slice of the electorate.

by protothad 2008-05-14 10:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

well Alegre  your wrong he can beat MCcain

you know why ? because as a democrat you will support him with all the passion and heart you supported Hillary with. If you are a true Hillary supporter you would follow her lead and support Obama with all you got because she will and her whole family will you know How much Hillary loves this country and you will Let Hillary down if you don't support Obama.  

He can beat McCain remember  last debate Hillary said Obama can beat McCain ...do you think she was wrong when she said Obama can beat McCain?

by wellinformed 2008-05-14 08:23PM | 0 recs
There is no evidence to that affect.

Both Obama and Clinton are equally able to beat McCain.

by DawnG 2008-05-14 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

The polls say you're wrong, but don't let that stop you.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-14 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Ok, well I disagree with you there considering he's tied and/or 5-10pts better than McCain, even with a divided democratic party atm.

I think he's going to win going away against McCain in the fall. But I am VERY glad that you're not arguing that Obama isn't pro-choice. We can agree to disagree on who best to beat McCain. I just never want to get into debates over whether Obama is really pro-choice or not.

Thank you :)

by Yalin 2008-05-15 08:54AM | 0 recs
Well you're certainly not helping, by

trying to demean and smear NARAL for endorsing Obama.  You said you refrained comment before when NARAL was endorsing a Republican, but now that they are endorsing a pro-choice Democrat, now you speak up?  Because it hurts your feelings that HRC is not going to be the nominee?  Or rather that you think McCain will beat Obama?

Then why aren't you sending money to Obama?  Why are you not campaigning for Obama?  Why are you sending money to a candidate that has no chance of being a nominee and has helped in the Republican attack against the Democratic Nominee?  

You need to rethink this, by your own words there are serious flaws in the logic

by KLRinLA 2008-05-15 03:39PM | 0 recs
he is not STRONGLY pro-choice

his political cover tactics of voting "present" are enough to establish that fact.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-15 06:37AM | 0 recs
anyone who still believes...

This long-refuted talking point either is a troll or needs to take a long, long break from the primary and come back when they're willing to judge votes based upon their effect rather than how spinning them may benefit a particular candidate.

by Casuist 2008-05-15 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Thanks for sharing this, alegre.

by durendal 2008-05-14 07:41PM | 0 recs
Marched in DC with my 10 year old...

daughter and homemade signs (Keep your laws off my body/Against abortion?  Don't have one).  Her picture ended up on the cover of a special section of the Washington Post in glorious full color.

We both have our own copies today - 19 years later.

Rise.  Hillary.  Rise!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-14 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Marched in DC with my 10 year old...

Heh - I was at that rally with my own mother.  She drove out from Michigan and helped me hand out NARAL signs for that march.

Do you remember that HUGE mock headstone near the Washington Monument, dedicated to the thousands of women who died because they didn't have a choice????

by alegre 2008-05-14 08:13PM | 0 recs
Sure do - and Whoopie Goldberg

leading the way.  My daughter was in awe!

What a great day.  What a great memory for me and her.
 

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-14 08:18PM | 0 recs
Had this as a bumper sticker for years...
Against Abortion?

Don't have one

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I was an escort at a clinic for four years.  I had my tires slashed, my windows broken and my life threatened.  I admire Hillary Clinton, but NARAL made a realistic and a brave choice and I have no doubt that Barack Obama will fight for women's rights.  He also has two little girls, remember?

by lollydee 2008-05-15 03:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Nice diary,

I'm not a member of Naral.  I don't think they will care if they write them or not.

However, their endorsement of Obama is sheer idiocy.  The local chapters are not happy and do NOT AGREE.

by bellarose 2008-05-15 03:53AM | 0 recs
It's really funny...

the headline says "Tell NARAL" but the text says "Give money to Hillary."

by Rorgg 2008-05-15 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

How is NARAL wrong?  Are you saying Obama is not Pro-Choice?  He is clearly going to be the nominee.  Why is it ok For Emily's List to endorse Clinton but not for NARAL to endorse Obama?

by Bobby Obama 2008-05-14 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

It's not okay because Hillary supporters say so.  I was completely offended when Ellen Malcolm said that Hillary is on stage at debates being beat up by a bunch of white men. I'm sorry but last time  I checked Barack was black. EMILY's list is a white woman's organization. Period.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-14 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Yeah, everytime someone talks about the outrageous sexism demonstrated during this primary, some yuk yuk pops up crying racism.

You're not fooling anyone.

by bellarose 2008-05-15 04:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

She referred to Obama as a white man. Utterly offensive. Yes, Ellen Malcolm is one of those white feminists that didn't give a damn about the issues of minority women. I have absolutely no use for her.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-15 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Wow! So, it appears you subscribe to the notion that if someone has ANY black in them they are only black.

Obama is half white and was raised by whites. In my book that makes him AT LEAST as much white as black.

Considering that it is his MOTHER that is white, which means every cell in his body has the machinery from his white mother, with a little bit of DNA from his black father, in reality he is more white than black - purely from a biological point of view. So, in reality, in many ways he IS a white man.

You do know that it is racists that say that a drop of black blood makes a person black, don't you? If you had grown up in the south, you might know that.

by splashy 2008-05-15 10:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

First of all - no he's NOT clearly going to be the nominee.  A lot can happen between now and the convention so don't count your eggs before their hatched.

Second of all - he's NOT going to beat McCain so backing Obama makes no sense whatsoever if you're determined to defend choice and protect the courts.

by alegre 2008-05-14 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

You are out to lunch if you think that Barack OBama is not going to be the nominee. I understand that your girl lost and you are devastated but this is just ridiculous.  Talk about white women being selfish because they can't get their way. Get a grip.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-14 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Your remark is ridiculous. Let me paraphrase to show you why:

"You are out to lunch if you think that Hillary Clinton is not going to be the nominee. I understand that your boy lost and you are devastated but this is just ridiculous.  Talk about a black man with a messiah complex being selfish because he can't get his way. Get a grip."

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

typical w

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-14 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Yes, according to Obama I'm just a "typical white person."

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Well, according to the rest of us, you're in denial.

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-14 09:29PM | 0 recs
"The rest of us"??????????

Speak for yourself.  You don't speak for "us"!

by itsadryheat 2008-05-15 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

No, according to Obama his grandmother is a "typical white person."

by DesideriusErasmus 2008-05-15 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

by semiquaver 2008-05-14 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

sorry, accidental pushbutton

by semiquaver 2008-05-14 09:32PM | 0 recs
They're hatched

A South Bend single-mom marches on Senator Duck Hunter.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-14 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Actually, the primary is over. And while November is a long way off, Obama has thye edge at this point. If we all pull together, we will beat McCain.

by fugazi 2008-05-14 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

"The primary is over"?  Which one?

If you're talking about all of them I think you'd better tell the folks in those last 5 states / PR because they're still making calls and knocking on neighbor's doors.

Look you guys have been saying it's over for months and yet Hillary won WV by 41 points last night. If it's so over then why are people turning out in record numbers to tell you you're wrong?

by alegre 2008-05-14 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

sigh. Yeah ok. Despite the fact that Hillary can't win, there are still a handful of primaries left. I should have used the word "effectively." The primary is effectively over.

by fugazi 2008-05-14 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

You DO understand how all this works - right?

That no one actually VOTES until the convention in August, and that people are free to change their mind between now and then?

Come on guys - I know you're smarter than this.

by alegre 2008-05-14 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I understand quite well how this works, and Hillary cannot win this primary. I am sorry to be so blunt, but that is a fact. There comes a time when we need to put aside our wishes and accept things as they are.

by fugazi 2008-05-14 08:23PM | 0 recs
If you're going to use that argument...

...You have got to acknowledge that that cuts both ways.

Are you sure you want to stick with that argument?

Because IF (and I'm not saying it will) delegates shift from Clinton to Obama I don't want to hear you coming back and complaining about it because you seem perfectly fine with it now.

by DawnG 2008-05-14 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

You DO understand how all this works - right?

That no one actually VOTES until the convention in August, and that people are free to change their mind between now and then?

Wow, so Dennis Kucinich is clearly going to be the nominee.  I know this because he is obviously the most electable and the delegates will surely change their minds by the convention and vote for him there.  Yippee.

by you like it 2008-05-14 11:06PM | 0 recs
McCain stealing election from Paul

I agree with alegre that until the convention actually votes, nothing is official.  

Same thing goes for the republican side.  Anyone who refers to McCain as the Republican nominee has to realize that that is not true.  It doesn't matter that McCain has the most pledged delegates garnered through the primaries, because the Republican convention has not occurred yet and the delegates are free to change their mind between now and then.    

I wonder why Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee supporters aren't up in arms for the way McCain goes around acting like he's the nominee even though the delegates haven't even voted yet.  Don't Huckabee and Paul supporters care about democracy?  Why are they letting McCain steal the election when anything can happen between now and the Republican convention?

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-15 12:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Then why do you consistently refer to McCain as the Republican nominee?, like in this diary:

http://alegre.mydd.com/story/2008/5/12/2 15134/739

It's also not over on the GOP side until the actual convention, right?

by Brannon 2008-05-15 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

And your guy got "effectively" trounced last night by a two to one margin. Obama can't close the deal because voters keep rejecting him by HUGE margins.

by KnowVox 2008-05-14 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Hillary picked up only 10 delegates in WV. That's the bottom line. She can not win the nomination.

by fugazi 2008-05-14 08:26PM | 0 recs
Actually

WV's turnout was lower than four years ago. No they did not have record turnout. Sorry but those are the facts.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-14 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Also, please explain why Barack Obama will not beat McCain. Have you not seen the polls? He has always polled stronger than Hillary in head to head matchups. Just because Hillary says it doesn't mean it is necessarily true.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-14 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Ummm... have you noticed those two maps on the front page here?

by alegre 2008-05-14 07:43PM | 0 recs
LOL

You are joking right? Please check out Poblano's blog fivethirtyeight.com for unbiased electoral predictions.  

That was a good one though.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-14 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL

Poblano is now unbiased.   Well, bless his heart.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-14 08:17PM | 0 recs
the maps?

the one where Wisconsin has been labeled an Obama loss in spite of his besting McCain in 8 of the last 9 polls? Those maps?

Yes, we've seen them... and even were polling data particularly credible this far out measuring a candidate still mired in his primary against a nominee, the maps would still be nonsense.

by Casuist 2008-05-14 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Wow. If you think those maps are relevant then you should talk something other than politics.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 07:57PM | 0 recs
Are you saying Hillary makes no sense?

She just gave an interview this afternoon, on CNN, saying she would back Obama.

James Carville just backed Obama

http://mydd.com/story/2008/5/14/124442/2 31

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-14 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you saying Hillary makes no sense?

thats a pretty desperate spin on your part but i guess you're feeling pretty anxious after a 41 point loss, understandable.  i know, i know, it's just appalachia, not a region of the country he needs, but still....ouch!

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-14 07:43PM | 0 recs
Who said anything about WV?

straw man, much.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-14 07:50PM | 0 recs
You mean Losses like these??
                     BHO         HRC
Alaska         75.2%       24.7%
Idaho          79.5%     17.2%
Kansas       74.0%       25.8%
Colorado      66.5%    32.3%
Georgia       66.4%      31.1%               
Minnesota  66.4%      32.2%
Illinois        64.7%      32.8%
Nebraska    67.7%      32.3%
DC              75.3%      23.8%
Hawaii       76.1%      23.7%               
Virginia      63.7%      35.5%                                                                                                                   
by hootie4170 2008-05-14 07:57PM | 0 recs
caucuses states except for IL

by indus 2008-05-14 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: caucuses states except for IL

Georgia, DC, and Virginia are primary states.

by Agent77 2008-05-14 10:11PM | 0 recs
it is useless trying to correct them

reality has no bearing on the virulent anti Obama crowd. if they have decided that VA was a caucus it is because any state primary that goes for Obama is automatically converted to being a caucus.

Please don't confuse them with the truth. Their anti Obama hate is so deep that your points are unable to get through.

by denniswine 2008-05-14 10:17PM | 0 recs
Re: caucuses states except for IL

Ah yes, more of Hillary Clinton's "50-State Strategy" where Michigan and Florida are extra special because they broke the rules and Hillary did will but caucus states don't count because they were DNC-sanctioned elections but Hillary lost.

Incidentally, Georgia, Virginia, and DC (ok not a state, but then again neither is the all-important Puerto Rico) all have primaries. But I'm sure those primaries were conveniently undemocratic and/or Barack cheated, so they don't count.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-14 10:23PM | 0 recs
Re: caucuses states except for IL

Last I checked DC has electoral votes, but not PR.. maybe Hillary's math can eliminate those as well.

by Why Not 2008-05-14 11:21PM | 0 recs
Come on!

Those states don't count. They voted for Obama.

by Mumphrey 2008-05-15 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you saying Hillary makes no sense?

This just in:

Blind squirrel finds nut.

by lockewasright 2008-05-14 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you saying Hillary makes no sense?

James Carville?  OM gawd now you're just flat out LYING.  Stop it al - just stop it.

by alegre 2008-05-14 07:44PM | 0 recs
An Inconvenient Truth

Fine, don't click on the link.  it carries his quotes.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-14 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you saying Hillary makes no sense?

You do read the news other than what is posted at www.hillaryclinton.com don't you?

OMG I ACTUALLY HEARD HER VOICE WHEN I TYPED THAT!

Too many speeches I have listened to this season, too many.

by kasjogren 2008-05-14 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

and this is based on? you just KNOW it huh?

she DESTROYED him by 40 points last night, he gets 5 supers and Edwards to endorse, and has a new poll come out showing him 7 points ahead of McCain nationally.

but yeah the rest of the world isn't playing along anymore that Hillary can win, but sure you are free to continue to tell us everyday that Hillary will win.

by TruthMatters 2008-05-14 07:43PM | 0 recs
it's Fearmongering at it's weakest.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-14 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Second of all - he's NOT going to beat McCain so backing Obama makes no sense whatsoever if you're determined to defend choice and protect the courts.

And there goes your credibility.

With that, you've gone from strong advocate for your candidate to just another whining doomsayer.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-14 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Whining doomsayer?  You HAVE seen those maps on the front page - haven't you?

by alegre 2008-05-14 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

So they get those from the GE totals from the 2008 election? Who knew?

by letterc 2008-05-14 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Someone leaked the results, apparently.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/di ebold_accidentally_leaks

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-14 09:52PM | 0 recs
you have seen the recent...

head to head Obama vs. McCain polls, haven't you?

You have seen the bullshit way those maps are generated, haven't you?

Do you actually believe labeling WI a McCain state is justified, by way of an example?

by Casuist 2008-05-14 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

If you believe those maps I've got some prime appointments in HRC's cabinet to sell you.

by semiquaver 2008-05-14 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

The MyDD maps mean next to nothing, hence the top-rated diary asking for transparency.

No other map or poll shows Obama losing. The latest general polls have Obama up by a healthy margin (and Clinton, too).

Heck, you're not even suggesting that Obama will have a more difficult time, or has his work cut out for him, or needs to expand his coalition, etc. You're flat-out saying he'll lose. Pardon us for not entertaining such defeatist, chicken-little prognostications on a Democratic blog.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-14 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

He wins by a few points nationally, but unfortunately, his strengths aren't concentrated in states we need to win to be competitive.  

It's going to take a miracle to salvage Obama in Pennsylvania after he famously urinated a sociology lesson on the small-town voters here who would not (and will not) vote for him.  

West Virginia's relevance isn't about delegates.  It's a clarion picture of a key demographic that Obama has no chance of winning this fall.  If he awkwardly tries to appeal to middle/working class white voters on the East Coast and Appalachia, he will look as silly as Dukakis in that tank.  

College Kids + African Americans may get you somewhere in the Democratic party, but it's a losing strategy in a general election.  

by BPK80 2008-05-15 12:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Gut feel trumps reality, again.

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-14 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Yes. We've all seen the make-believe maps on the homepage that describe how the Ice Queen will wrest Narnia from the clutches of--wait. What? That's not Narnia? OK, then what country is that? The US? Really? Hahaha...milk just came out of my nose.

Oh.

You're serious...

<sigh>

by Rationalisto 2008-05-14 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

So Hillary CAN win the nomination because the convention is still a couple months away, but Obama CAN'T win the GE which hasn't even started yet?  Your genius is stunning.  Please share with me your ways.  I always found traditional logic so boring.  Alegre logic is what I've always longed for.

by proseandpromise 2008-05-15 04:16AM | 0 recs
hey alegre, serious question

You have a "First" and a "Second,"  and you seem pretty confident that Clinton will be the nominee.

Given that, if Obama does turn out to be the nominee, will you put in some introspection time and reconsider the confidence with which you make the "Second" declaration?

I have no doubts you have said that Clinton would definitely be the nominee at various points of this primary process; if you were wrong then, consider that you may also be wrong about Obama's chances against McCain.

Seriously, just consider it.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-14 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I'm not going to mention your first point, because you are right he is not the nominee....... yet.

However, explain to me how he is not going to beat McCain. At his point either Obama or Clinton beat McCain by the exact same amount 4.4%. This is the RCP average.

by jsfox 2008-05-14 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Makes you wonder if some people here weren't rooting for Greg Davis to beat Travis Childers just so they could brag about how "toxic" Obama is.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-14 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong
Things that make you go, "hmmmm."
     -C+C Music Factory
by asherrem 2008-05-14 08:02PM | 0 recs
The PERFECT pro-choice endorsment


President of Chicago NOW, Lorna Brett Howard, tells the story of why she switched from supporting Hillary Clinton to supporting Barack Obama.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-14 07:46PM | 0 recs
How dare you post this?

You're probably one of them paid Obama bloggers. Don't ever set the record straight, hear me?

by lizardbox 2008-05-14 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The PERFECT pro-choice endorsment

Guess the great eye of Mordor will be turning on NOW , next.

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-14 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

"he's NOT going to beat McCain"

WOW . . . are you leaving MyDD soon for Red State?!

Your comment is just straight up sad.

Good bye.

by Veteran75 2008-05-15 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: The logic being used here...

As long is it was empty, or CGI, or at least via some kind of Ray Bradbury plot device where all the people on board would have died anyway -- I would totally watch that.

Oh, and there would have to be no environmental impact.

God being a liberal makes me feel guilty even about hypotheticals.

by Lettuce 2008-05-15 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Clearly going to be the nominee?

Was there a convention while I was at the dentist today?

Is he anywhere close to 2210 pledged delegates?

Right, didn't think so.

And yes, Hillary's pro-choice record is bold and consistent over decades.  Much more credible than a handful of present votes.

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-14 07:39PM | 0 recs
I think the dentist pulled out your common sense

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-14 07:43PM | 0 recs
...another Hillary supporter...

attacking IL Planned Parenthood to make a political case for an individual candidate.

Kinda makes a mockery of abortion rights to use it as such a wedge issue when it is beyond question that the votes in question were, in fact, pro-choice.

by Casuist 2008-05-14 07:45PM | 0 recs
Over on Hillaryis44

people often post inflammatory stuff (at least according to someone who monitors that at hillaryis44.blogspot.com) rigth before the go to the dentist.  Just a weird coincidence about the whole dentist thing as I just discovered that site not too long ago...

by Student Guy 2008-05-14 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

present votes as part of a strategy developed by IL NARAL, which Obama was hesitant to go along with because he knew that people like you would make it a political attack against him from the left in the future. But he did it anyway, risking his political pro-choice credentials to help preserve women's right to choose.

by letterc 2008-05-14 07:54PM | 0 recs
short answer...

...because anyone who endorses Clinton is good, and anyone who endorses Obama is bad.

I really can't figure out any other reason beyond that.  And that scares me most about the left right now.  

by DawnG 2008-05-14 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Because he voted "present" 7 times on legislation to ban abortions without an exception for the health or to save the life of the woman!

by suzieg 2008-05-15 02:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

a vote of present has the same effect as a vote of no. do your homework. this was a strategy set up in consultation with pro-choice groups.

by shef 2008-05-15 09:03AM | 0 recs
NARAL does important work. Period.

But I guess political allegiances are more important than the actual issue (a woman's right to choose) for some partisans here.

by Hudson 2008-05-15 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

It is wrong for NARAL to endorse the defeat of a strong pro-choice leader, particularly if the one they select is a) not as strong on choice; and b) has no record of accomplishing anything on choice.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I hear you saying "he has a 100% voting record on choice" which is not inconsistent with what I said.  He has voted correctly; he has not lead.  He has not raised funds for pro-choice candidates.  He has not campaigned for pro-choice candidates.  He has not sponsored or written or lead any bill on choice at any level.  Which doesn't mean he's bad; he's just not as good and certainly not better on choice than Hillary.

To which I therefore say, NARAL has no reason to endorse anyone in this race if they don't want to go with the more accomplished leader on choice.

Emily's List has a different mandate.  Read the lit; read the web page.  Their goal is to elect pro-choice Democratic Women.
Women.
qua women.

Finally, I would also add a point about timing.  Emily's List was in it from the day one.  They endorsed to have an effect during the primaries.  What's NARAL doing?  Jumping on the bandwagon just as the perceive it is rolling across the finish line?  Toward what end?  

If their purpose was to alienate those of us who have been in this from the beginning, they are doing a splendid job.   If their purpose is to make sure that not one Hillary Democrat ever contributes another dime to NARAL, I can't think of a better time --- the very day OB dismissed a woman reporter and diminshed her as "Sweetie."

The only question now is do we stay and fight to take back NARAL for feminists, or let the "players" have that one and go back to Planned Parenthood and, yes, Emily's List.

by mdFriendofHillary 2008-05-15 01:18PM | 0 recs
Why are they wrong?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 07:27PM | 0 recs
yeah - what he said

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-14 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: yeah - what he said

Asking for money for Mark Penn is just sad at this point. He should pay Clinton money since he did such a disservice to her campaign.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 07:30PM | 0 recs
really.

how much has Penn contributed?

The least he could do is sell his bike.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-14 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: really.

He should sell his house and give her the money.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 07:38PM | 0 recs
Hey guy

what is with the TR down thread?  I am guessing it is a mistake, please fix if it is.

by Student Guy 2008-05-14 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Hey guy

Oh definitely. Sorry about that!

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Hey guy

uh, I think you did the same thing to me...

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-14 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hey guy

Shit. Ok. Time to go to sleep. Sorry.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Obama has a 100% pro-choice record from NARAL. Why wouldn't they endorse him? What was wrong with the choice?

by DamnYankees 2008-05-14 07:28PM | 0 recs
simple

when there's a woman in the race, it's sexist not to endorse her.  After all, men have no stake in reproductive rights.

by semiquaver 2008-05-14 07:43PM | 0 recs
I call bullshit

NARAL is not a woman's organization, it is a single issue reproductive rights organization...there is no gonad requirement and for you to imply it is horribly sexist.

Obama has a perfect rating with NARAL, which is why they are endorsing him.

by Sychotic1 2008-05-14 08:05PM | 0 recs
that last sentence

was in lieu of a snark tag.  I wish there were a special font for sarcasm.

by semiquaver 2008-05-14 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: that last sentence

My snark-o-meter is broken...I think it might be because what I would normally consider snark is a serious post around here.

btw, I use:

/snark

by Sychotic1 2008-05-14 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: that last sentence

Actually, the real reason it's wrong is that there are still primaries left on the calander.  Why not let the voters have their say?

And who better to make that point than EMILY's List, who endorsed Hillary Clinton months ago.

by Agent77 2008-05-14 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: that last sentence

Thank goodness. I was worried there for a minute. :)

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-14 10:27PM | 0 recs
Re: that last sentence

the shocking thing is that several people on this thread posted exactly that with a straight face.  I weep for the future.

by semiquaver 2008-05-15 03:05AM | 0 recs
Hi Taylor!

doncha have your own account?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-14 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

He's not a woman, that's what's wrong.

by belicheat 2008-05-14 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

from what I got, Obama is not electable so that means McCain wins and anti-abortion laws will be passed. also with a hint of Hillary is a woman and all women must support Hillary because they all have vaginas.

by TruthMatters 2008-05-14 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

not all women have vaginas.

i saw this video once.........aw never mind.

by citizendave 2008-05-14 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Naral is WRONG because Barack Obama voted Present several time on many pro-choice issues.

Hillary Clinton has a record of fighting for 35 years for women's rights including issues that are pro-choice.

She has a PERFECT record.

So this is totally and completely INSULTING.

I have asked for a full refund of all donations I have made to them through the years (about $500 total).

I am no longer a member and I will never support them AGAIN.

Ever.

by nikkid 2008-05-14 07:31PM | 0 recs
he has a 100 percent rating

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-14 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: he has a 100 percent rating

then why did he vote PRESENT at least 5 times?  "oops - I pushed the wrong button!!"

by nikkid 2008-05-14 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: he has a 100 percent rating

I just cannot believe you seriously don't know about the 'present' votes, there is just no way a blogger hasn't read one of the hundreds of diaries about this all over the net.

instead I will assume you are playing dumb just to try and argue. that can be the only logical explanation that or you weren't on mydd for the last 6 months.

by TruthMatters 2008-05-14 07:36PM | 0 recs
cmon now,

aren't we better than misleading, right-wing-style smears?

He was ENCOURAGED to vote present by Illinois Planned Parenthood (when he was willing to vote straight on the issue), and praised for it by Illinois Planned Parenthood, because of the strategic implications of a "present" vote in the Illinois state senate.

Some reading:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack _Obama_Abortion.htm

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-14 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: he has a 100 percent rating

Wrong question. The question is why he has 100% rating if what he did was a problem. As it was worked on with IL PP it wasn't a problem hence his 100% rating.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 07:39PM | 0 recs
He was asked to?

You do know that he was asked to do so by Illinois Planned Parenthood, right?  Or are you just being a right wing troll?

From NPR:
Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote "present" as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy.

Pam Sutherland is the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. She says Obama voted "present" at least seven times to provide cover to other abortion-rights supporters on such bills as the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act."

by Regenman 2008-05-14 08:11PM | 0 recs
JUST 100? Shameful!

I hope he apologizes soon for a paltry 100% record on an important Democratic position.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-14 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

If you understood Illinois politics, you'd know that is how we do it here at times. A present vote is a tactical maneuver and is not a no vote. Obama's present vote, so roundly slapped by NOW, was done with full approval from PP as a tactic. That has been proven and you're spreading mis-information. Sour grapes is not tasty.

I'll tell you, many of the comments at the NARAL web site were ugly, vile, hateful, and just plain disgusting. As a woman I found them beyond disturbing and indicative of a foul and rabid identity politics at play. I've been involved in women's issues for nearly 40 years and it never fails...women can become their own worst enemy. Sorry, but I'll not vote for a woman strictly because of gender and I won't tear down an organization because my candidate lost. Something has gone seriously wrong with the thinking of some women. So, go ahead, ladies, be foolish and hurt women for generations to come all because you didn't get your way.

by Bastet 2008-05-14 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Props.

Thank you. It's disingenuous that the "present" vote canard keeps being repeated. That accounted for approximately 126 votes out of over 4,000 that Obama cast during his tenure. If a look was taken of everyone else that sits in our state house/senate they'd see that tactic used many times.

It's of great concern to me when I hear women making the threats I saw at NARAL. It just screams unhinged and plays directly into every ugly stereotype available to be used against women. The idea of allowing McCain to be president is outrageous. The damage would be enormous. It would behoove some of Hillary's supporters to push away from the computer and calm down and think clearly.

If the situation were reversed I would have gladly voted for Hillary. I'm not just a woman but a Democrat. I couldn't live with myself if I'd had a hand in destroying what took so many years and such hard labor to achieve. The thought that women would suffer for years because I was throwing a tantrum is just too horrible to envision.

by Bastet 2008-05-14 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Thank you.  This is the type of post that is so rarely seen here at MyDD: A fact-based post that puts issues before candidates.  Cheers.

You'll notice that none of Obama's detractors on this thread will deign to respond to this post or change their rhetoric.  They'll continue to use their dishonest talking points as if you'd never set them straight.

I'd mojo your post, but like many others who rec'd some pro-Obama diaries last week, I've lost my privileges.

by chinapaulo 2008-05-14 10:45PM | 0 recs
Doesn't Obama have a lame answer

to the question "when does life begin?", I don't have a link but I am floored that NARAL would toss itself onto his ticket without 100% clear cut guarantee that the candidate thinks that all terminations of pregnancies are valid.

I already have one family member who 1) canceled her contribution and 2) balled out their political office for not endorsing Hillary based on her outstanding records on womens' issues. Obama is a zero there.

by Molee 2008-05-14 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Doesn't Obama have a lame answer

You do understand that Clinton opposes late term abortions except for health reasons, right? Obama, on the other hand, believes that women should be allowed to make up their own minds on late term abortions.

I don't care when Obama thinks life begins, I care whether he wants to impose that belief on others. He doesn't. He wants to let every person make up their own mind on that question, and let them act accordingly in their own life.

by letterc 2008-05-14 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Doesn't Obama have a lame answer

If by zero you mean 100% rating then you are right.  Otherwise you are wrong.

by kasjogren 2008-05-14 08:39PM | 0 recs
Ah - 44

as in Hillary is 44.com

Okay. Hi, Taylor!  Hi, Sid!

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-14 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Ah - 44

How the mighty have fallen.

Alegre working with the Hillaryis44 hate crew.

44. Nice catch Al.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-14 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Ah - 44

Don't forget Alex Rodriguez - and he's just the patsy operative dumb enough to get "caught."

Truly, this is the year of the earth rat. It's shocking how naive people are this late into the process.

Running a volunteer bank of bloggers and posters is a hell of a lot easier than slipping flyers about illegitimate children under enough windshield wipers to matter. The shit - orchestrated and in some cases paid-for - is flying from all sides and it's a dead cinch that 1/3 or more of the most active posters, diarists, and front-pagers at most sites are coordinated with a campaign, party, or other organization.

The internet is a ratf*ck force multiplier and will continue to be one until the average readers wise up, the prospect of which calls to mind several choice H.L. Mencken quotes.

by crankydonkey 2008-05-14 10:50PM | 0 recs
Honestly

I can see the pattern of your upset, but boycotting NARAL does nothing but hurt abortion rights.

by RISD Democrat 2008-05-14 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Honestly
It's beyond the pale to see the hysterical and bitter, die-hard Clinton supporters call for the nuclear obliteration of progressive principles people, and programs because their "Hill-gal" won't get the nomination they still think she's entitled to.
To threaten to vote McCain because "our gal Hill" fell short of the nomination.
It reeks of spoiled, self absorption.
by toyomama 2008-05-14 08:49PM | 0 recs
Get Over It

Get over it.  Is it about choice & the Supreme Court or something else?  Let's defend the right to choose, let's defend Roe v. Wade.  

My story is that friends and family have been involved in establishing and defending the right to choose in Missouri since the early 1970's.  It's time that we look at the issues even if some have a problem with personalities.  

Thank you NARAL for putting issues first.  Real women, real lives are at stake.  Let's beat McSame.

by howardpark 2008-05-14 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

What kind of Democrat is Algere?  Saying Obama will not beat McCain?  And this is the person who keeps getting rec'd on this site?

by Bobby Obama 2008-05-14 07:38PM | 0 recs
Finally!

Someone says it. Reading ALegre's posts I have come to the following conclusions:

1) She's white
2)She's wealthy or doing better than most folks

  1. She's a blind Hillary supporter and by blind I mean rabid and can't see anything else except for Hillary.
  2. She is angry that a young black man has "stolen" the nomination from her girl.
  3. She needs a lot of attention. I mean who else posts 2 diaries a day if they aren't trying to seek attention for their insecurities?
  4. She is not a true democrat as she is admitting that she wants Barack Obama to lose.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-14 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Finally!

she is a paid blogger, so she isn't blind, but she has to post diaries like this is what she is paid for. so most of these are off, she knows what she is doing, this is just what they pay her for.

by TruthMatters 2008-05-14 07:52PM | 0 recs
Be nice

gang!

by lizardbox 2008-05-14 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Be nice

what be nice I truly 100% believe Alegre is a paid blogger, its the only thing that makes sense to me.

by TruthMatters 2008-05-14 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Be nice

There is zero doubt in my mind at this point.  The verbatim talking points and perpetual requests for donations have become too much.  I respected her passion for her candidate until she suggested in this thread that McCain will beat the Democratic nominee in 2008.  Hillary would profoundly disappointed in hearing anyone say that, much less a Democrat.

by Pat Flatley 2008-05-14 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Be nice

I was joking. I'm waiting on a real consiliatory diary from Alegre, but I know it won't come. She claims that she'll support the nominee but I don't see it. Talk is cheap. gang.

by lizardbox 2008-05-14 08:05PM | 0 recs
My Guess

Is that alegre will disappear from the blogs the minute that Hillary concedes.

by toyomama 2008-05-14 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Be nice

It would be real funny if the paycheck the Clinton campaign send to alegre for blogging bounces and  alegre gets pissed and starts posting anti Hillary Diaries

owe I would love to see her as a disgruntled employee   lmao

by wellinformed 2008-05-14 08:33PM | 0 recs
So having a 100% rating from

NARAL means he isn't worthy of their endorsement.  He planned the present votes with an Illinois abortion rights group, so taking the political advice of a abortion rights group is a bad thing.  Saying teenage pregnancy is not good is a bad thing.

I would have preferred a dual endorsement until the primary is officially over for the sake of party unity, but for all intents and purposes it is over (unless Obama gets hit by a meteor, or something else that drastic happens like he is caught smoking crack wearing a I hate whitey shirt and defecating on the american flag), it is time to hit McCain with the Corn Belt, with his war stance, with his 0% rating from NARAL, with his bad domestic policies, with his war mongering and saber rattling, he has gotten a free ride (except for the DNC running some awesome ads) for far too long, it is time for McCain to get taken down to the 30's for his support.

by Student Guy 2008-05-14 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: So having a 100% rating from

B.S. - he asked permission for voting "present" with his lame excuse of protecting democrats in red districts. You have to stand with your principles which clearly he lacks when it comes to abortion - wanting to stay safe to appeal to republicans at the expense of women's lives. Playing games with women's reproductive rights and putting their lives at risk for political manoeuvering is beyond contempt and show his lack of political courage. Let this be a lesson on how he will govern if he becomes president, which I doubt after learning that the Illinois legislature only convenes for 55 days a year means that he's spent less than a year as a state senator and only bothered to show up in the US Senate for 143 days since 31/2 yrs. Has anyone of you done research on his fanatic Kenyan brothers yet? The reps will make mince meat out of him with these two - Rev. Wright will be small potatos compared to these two.

by suzieg 2008-05-15 02:37AM | 0 recs
Re: So having a 100% rating from

"lame excuse of protecting democrats in red districts."

Please let that be snark.

by astoria gooner 2008-05-15 06:25AM | 0 recs
so your explanation...

for why they are "wrong"...


Come to think of it - before that (before Roe) they were known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.  Maybe today's endorsement signals a return to that name eh?  Because if Obama's our nominee you can bet your @ss we'll see McCain in the WH and anti-choice justices nominated / appointed to the Supreme Court and the lower courts.  This will - in effect, wipe out everything we've gained in our reproductive rights since Jan. 22, 1973.  Intended or not, today's endorsement could well lead to the repeal of what few laws are on the books protecting our right to choose.

Is because you think that our popular vote, pledged delegate and superdelegate leader will lose? Because you think somehow managing to overcome those results would result in a stronger candidate rather than a candidate who couldn't win her own party?

I thought endorsements were supposed to be about the issues, not about voting for only the candidate you believe in...

by Casuist 2008-05-14 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I'm curious as to what you're hoping to accomplish with this?

If it is getting NARAL to "switch sides," by strong-arming them, I'm afraid that will not be very well received.

If it is because Obama is, as you say, unelectable, perhaps the money would be better served going to down ticket democrats or other pro-choice organizations, rather than Hillary Clinton.

Or...maybe we could just stop with this petty stuff and agree to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be, to assure his or her electability instead of complaining one has it and the other doesn't.

by asherrem 2008-05-14 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

They must've learned from the wonderful, positive coverage those Clinton fund-raisers got for trying to strong-arm Pelosi. Or the wonderful, positive coverage the hillaryis44 members got for trying to strong-arm superdelegates.

It's great stuff, really.

In all seriousness, only in Clinton land does it make sense that NARAL is lambasted for not waiting until the end of the primary before endorsing Obama, but Emily's List is hailed for not waiting until the end of the primary before endorsing Clinton.

Likewise, superdelegates are lambasted for not waiting until the end of the primary before endorsing Obama, but were hailed for supporting Clinton in droves before the primaries had even begun.

IOKIYACS!

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-14 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Or maybe you could stop propping up a national organization like Alito-loving NARAL, that also backed Joe "Rape Gurney" Lieberman, even while their local chapter refused to fall in line? Click, click!

http://firedoglake.com/2006/11/06/naral- lying-for-lieberman/

Nancy Keenan has a record of making reprehensible endorsements.  It's all about the kaching with Nancy, screw women's rights.

NO MORE DONATIONS, PERIOD!

by Caldonia 2008-05-15 05:46AM | 0 recs
Naral

Naral obviously respects honesty and integrity, well deserved endorsment, anybody got a link so I can buy a years membership to counter this childishness?

by cdnminer 2008-05-14 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Naral

Give here: NARAL.

I can't afford much, but I think I'll give $25 to counter some fool out there who will stop giving money to defend the right to abortion because NARAL didn't support her choice of candidate (even though her candidate supports restrictions on late term abortions).

by letterc 2008-05-14 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Naral

Thanks.  I'm going to send a donation their way myself to make up for all of this ridiculousness.

by Pat Flatley 2008-05-14 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Naral

$10 done...Barack will get the other $10.....

by hootie4170 2008-05-14 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Naral

thx gave them $500, should make up for the actions of some juveniles...pathetic

by cdnminer 2008-05-14 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Naral

Great idea.

I'm sending them some money too.

50 dollars ain't so shabby.

I can't make diaries but someome who can should do a donation
thread. Really get together and donate.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-14 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Naral

me neither but thx good idea....lets hope Obama does'nt get endorsed by the American breast cancer foundation or the salvation army...geezzz

by cdnminer 2008-05-14 08:47PM | 0 recs
This is beyond silly.

Someday, you're going to be ashamed that you urged people to heckle an organization explicitly designed to protect the rights of women simply because they chose to endorse someone other than your preferred candidate for the White House.

by Firewall 2008-05-14 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: This is beyond silly.

Ashamed that they betrayed us by endorsing a man who vote present 7 times to ban abortions without an exception for saving the life of the woman? There are many other excellent organizations who want to protect women's reproductive rights - it's obvious NARAL is no longer one of them by endorsing a man above a woman who has spent her life defending these rights!

by suzieg 2008-05-15 02:40AM | 0 recs
Hey Alegre

GLaDoS feels that you have made a triumph...

by Student Guy 2008-05-14 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Hey Alegre

I love portal, but I guess I don't get your point.  You've posted this exact thing in at least one other thread.  why?

by semiquaver 2008-05-14 07:51PM | 0 recs
For a few reasons

the context of GLaDoS in the game (someone trying to be friendly while secretly having it out for you), the awesomeness of the song, and especially for the first part (it being sarcastic about your success).

This was a triumph
I am taking a not here
HUGE SUCCESS
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.
...
Now these points of data make a beautiful line.
And we're out of beta.
We're releasing on time.
So I'm GLaD. I got burned.
Think of all the things we learned
for the people who are still alive.
Go ahead and leave me.
I think I prefer to stay inside.
Maybe you'll find someone else to help you.
...
Anyway, this cake is great.
It's so delicious and moist.
Look at me still talking
when there's Science to do.
When I look out there, it makes me GLaD I'm not you.

Are the relevant parts
(I post this when people get emo about Obama's chance of winning in the fall)

by Student Guy 2008-05-14 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Hey Alegre

That's a pretty cool song and I'm lazy. More information on artist?

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-14 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Hey Alegre

The song 'Still Alive' at the end of Portal during the credits.
GLaDOS Myspace/MP3/Companion Cube Wallpaper at the bottom of the description.

'Still Alive' by Jonathan Coulton: http://www.jonathancoulton.com
and sung by Ellen McLain (GLaDOS, TF2 Announcer, HL2 Overwatch Administrator)

Straight from youtube, and the sarcastic tone of it makes it a great song to post in diaries like this one.

by Student Guy 2008-05-14 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Hey Alegre

Agreed.  I'm heading to check out this stuff.

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-14 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Hey Alegre

That would be the great Jonathan Coulton, internet hero and fuzzy troubador friend of the great John Hodgman. Free tunes (and some that are just a buck) at www.jonathancoulton.com.

by jere7my 2008-05-14 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Alegre:

I have a better idea:  leave NARAL alone.

They do good work, important work.  Work you claim to support.  Now, because they have excerised their collective "right to choose" regarding whom they will endorse in a Democratic candidate, you seek to punish them?

That's just crazy, and WRONG.

by fogiv 2008-05-14 07:51PM | 0 recs
yes, leave them alone, remove your name, support

and any idea of credibility you thought they had.

They're done with any recognition of what they once might have been and are only a business to appease some.

by LindaSFNM 2008-05-14 07:55PM | 0 recs
Answer this then:

Did you support NARAL, directly or indirectly, before they endorsed Obama?  If so, why?

by fogiv 2008-05-14 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Answer this then:

I stopped supporting them over a couple years ago, as I stated below.

by LindaSFNM 2008-05-14 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Answer this then:

Sorry, I didn't see that.  I can then infer that the discontinuation of your support has nothing to do with a political endorsement, and is issue based, correct?

Why not make an persuasive argument to your peers to discontinue their support based on the merits for your decision for such a course of action?

My point is this:  harassing and relinquishing support for an organization that protects the progessive pro-choice position that most HRC supporters champion simply because they endorse a candidate other than her is, to be blunt, cutting off one's nose to spite the face.

An attempt to hobble, coerce, silence, or threaten NARAL over (what amounts to be a largely meaningless) endorsement of a cadidate (who has an excellent progressive record on the issue) is utterly nonsensical.

by fogiv 2008-05-14 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong
Please post a diary to that effect - I'm sure you'd have some readers and commenters.
As for myself, being a Dem means I can't support  someone who allowed his constituents (who were poor and voted for him) to go w/o heat in Chicago during a brutal winter. Some things are beyond the pale for this voter.
by durendal 2008-05-14 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Evidently truth is beyond the pale too.  Regardless, what might that have to do with supporting (or not) NARAL?

by fogiv 2008-05-14 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

He didn't know???

by durendal 2008-05-14 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

You're proving to me he did?  How?

Are you incapable of adressing the original topic, or can I expect a "your mamma" pun from you next?

by fogiv 2008-05-14 09:33PM | 0 recs
Not surprised by NARAL at all, considering

the path they've been on these past many years.  They were not fighting and speaking up when they should have been.  And when they asked for donations to run ads, they chickened out on complalints and cancelled it immediately.  

They seemed like they were a cover operation.  The icing was their endorsement of Jihad Joe LIEberman.  You know, B O's mentor.  

And, B O, who's record is at best questionable, is all too fitting for NARAL I'm sorry to say.  IF truly there are any woman still members of NARAL, they should cancel and remove their names.

My mother was so upset with them too after that ad fiasco some years back.

There are better Orgs who actually work and help the cause.  Better to give them support to grow them in to a more powerful house.

Truly a disgrace what NARAL did.  If anything, just in it's symbolism, not that they really matter.  Most others have integrity and do the hard work.  NARAL just showed what a facade they are.

by LindaSFNM 2008-05-14 07:53PM | 0 recs
Lieberman = Clinton

Your analogy is totally incorrect.

Clinton and Lieberman both voted for the Iraq War.  Clinton just reaffirmed some of her neo-con qualities by stating that she'll nuke Iran over Israel (one of Lieberman's big issues and why he's been supporting the Iraq War)

Obama is consistently one of the most liberal senators in Congress.

If you had an integrity in regard to analyzing in the issues, there is no way Lieberman is Obama's mentor.

Seriously, do you read what you type?

by Regenman 2008-05-14 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman = Clinton

Are you on the right diary?  Lets deal with some reality, OK?

Joe Lieberman, as B O stated himself, was his mentor.

And what does voting for the war have to do with this diary?  Kerry voted for the war, Edwards voted for the war.  Joe Lieberman PUSHED the war.

Obama voted to keep the war going for the entire two years he was in the Senate before announcing his run for Presidency.  B O also campaigned on the injustices of the Patriot Act, and no sooner got elected to the US Senate in 2005 and he voted FOR THE REAUTHORIZATION.  

You are a messed up puppy talking about questioning my integrity when you bring up War votes on a NARAL diary.  You must be rather shaken up, why is the question.  Are you familiar at all with Obama?  Or did you just listen to someone make a bunch of claims.  

And you ignorant misplaced snarks show you have issues.  Thank you for playing, but this is meant for people who actually pay attention to the issues.

by LindaSFNM 2008-05-14 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman = Clinton

And here, you should have checked facts if you didn't know them already before denigrating me.

"This was in 2003, when Obama clearly felt he could not afford to endanger left support by answering anything other than Yes on the questions and so he duly told the Black Commentator that he would stop hanging his hat in the halls of the DLC and would tell them to remove his name from their !00-To-Watch list. Hence his press man, Vietor's, sensitivity to my allusion in that last to Obama's "mentor" being Senator Joe Lieberman. As a freshman senator, Vietor insisted, Obama had been assigned Lieberman as "mentor". Read the Hartford Courant and you'll find Lieberman boasting that Obama picked him.

Either way, it's obvious that Obama could have brokered a different mentor if he'd so desired it, same way he could have declined to go and tout for Lieberman at that Democratic Party dinner in Connecticut at the end of March. But he clearly didn't, because he wanted to send out a reassuring signal, same way as his Political Action Committee, the Hope Fund's, is raising money for 14 of his senatorial colleagues ten of whom are DLC in orientation, which is half of the DLC presence in the Senate."

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn0424 2006.html

And, Obama's name was on the DLC's last published membership list. FACT

Only after he got flack for that from his constituents and the Black Commentator, did they (DLC) agree to make the membership list PRIVATE and will only dislcose names at the members request.  That was when true back lash started for being associated with DLC.  

The Democratic Leadership Council's Online Community

Frank O'Bannon, Governor, IN
    Martin O'Malley, Mayor, Baltimore, MD
    Michael A. O'Pake, State Senator, PA
    Barack Obama, State Senator, IL
    Norman Oliver, City Councilman, Wilmington, DE
    Marc R. Pacheco, State Senator, MA
http://web.archive.org/web/2003032709571 1/www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?vi ewAll=1

by LindaSFNM 2008-05-14 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprised by NARAL at all, considering

So anybody or any organization who didn't endorse Clinton is lacking "creditability", "integrity" or "noble causes" or are they all just pieces of shit??

by hootie4170 2008-05-14 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprised by NARAL at all, considering

They're all Judases, I guess.

There's going to be some serious cognitive dissonance with some of these folks when Hillary endorses Obama.  

by Pat Flatley 2008-05-14 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprised by NARAL at all, considering

I agree...I can't wait for the responses...

by hootie4170 2008-05-14 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprised by NARAL at all, considering

Hmm.  So yeah - to that Tell Hillary She's Wrong bit noted in the title of tonight's post...

I got an email from someone today and they had a great idea.  She's asking everyone to let Hillary know just how pissed we are over this betrayal (and we DO feel betrayed trust me) by donating the equivalent of a year's membership to...Hillary.  So if you're currently a member or were thinking of joining Hillary, send the money to Hillary instead you guys.  Help put a powerful pro-choice candidate in the White House - someone who can and WILL beat John McCain in the general election - and make sure our rights are protected.  Advanced even.

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-14 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprised by NARAL at all, considering

You should learn to read what one says.  That might help you in your future endeavors.

by LindaSFNM 2008-05-14 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprised by NARAL at all, considering

You should take off the blinders...there's a whole wide world out there...You're missing it...Good luck with your McCain Campaign...He's desperately looking for volunteers to push Bush III.

by hootie4170 2008-05-14 10:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

And while we're on the topic of all the things wrong with this diary, complaining about NARAL endorsing pro-choice Republicans is horribly short sighted. They're an ISSUE-based political group, not a Democratic booster club.

You want to see change in this country and American embracing your ideals? Then stop acting as if being a Republican automatically makes someone evil. The end game of the current Democratic surge is that we shift the Republicans left, and the only way that happens is that we don't spit on the moderates in their party who take stances on issues we agree with.

NARAL has absolutely no need or reason to subscribe to some sort of political purity test to do their job or be praise worthy, their only goal is to ensure their issues are embraced and protected in modern America and they are doing jsut that.

by werehippy 2008-05-14 07:54PM | 0 recs
I joined NOW with my mother when I was 13.

I began volunteering with my mother at abortion clinics when I was 15.  I would escort women from their cars past pro-life protesters.

I am a straight white woman, and I support Barack Obama for President.  I am extremely proud of NARAL for withstanding the pressure of fellow pro-choice and Feminist organizations to back the candidate whom they believe will be the strongest advocate for reproductive rights in the white house, regardless of his gender.  Barack Obama has a 100% rating from NARAL and all of the other pro-choice groups.  The notion that every Feminist organization must back a woman running for President because of her gender in order to be legitimate is not only anti-Feminist but counter-productive to the fight for equality in every area.

by The Distillery 2008-05-14 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I joined NOW with my mother when I was 13.

Thanks, Distillery. I volunteered at the local rape crisis center when I was in high school and trained to assist with first response hospital duty to help inform women of their legal and medical rights and help them through the traumatic first 24 hours after a sexual assault. And I support NARAL, their 100% rating of Senator Obama's women's rights platform, and their endorsement of his candidacy.

To anyone that still doesn't bother to educate themselves on why Obama has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and how they organized his "present" votes, then educate yourselves on women's rights in politics before you go flying off the handle. Making this into "support the candidate that's a woman at the expense of everything else" is to make a mockery of what women have fought for.

by upstate girl 2008-05-14 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I joined NOW with my mother when I was 13.

I'm a big volunteer for domestic violence and sexual violence as well.  I was in charge of this walk service for women on my campus in college (big campus: Austin, Texas) where any woman could have two people escort her home late at night.  It was very effective at reducing crime on our campus.  (I didn't create the agency, but I was proud to lead it.)  I'm also involved in V-Day, and I believe Eve Ensler supports Barack if I'm not mistaken.

He has a helluva bigger plan for addressing violence against women than HRC.  I have combed her website, and not one mention of violence against women, only pay equity and reproductive rights as though that were all we cared about.  I'm extremely proud to support him as a woman.

Your rec abilities were taken away?  That sucks.  I'll give mojo wherever I can.  I'm a big fan of yours!  :)

by The Distillery 2008-05-14 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I joined NOW with my mother when I was 13.

Bravo!  Color blind and gender blind, that's the ticket!

by haystax calhoun 2008-05-14 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I can't believe that you've argued that Obama will lose to McCain in the general election.  We're Democrats here, right?  Unbelievable.

by Pat Flatley 2008-05-14 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

He's not legitimate! If he gets the nomination it's only because of the caucuses where the average was 20,000 people unlike primaries which Hillary won the majority with hundred thousands of votes. Caucuses are not democratic!

by suzieg 2008-05-15 02:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong
Caucuses are perfectly valid and legitimate ways for states to choose the nominee, if they want to do it that way.
States have been having caucuses for 40 years or more, and nobody thought to whine about it until this year when Clinton began to lose them. How many of you people were whining about caucuses being frauds when BILL Clinton was winning them in 1992?
And if caucuses were such frauds, then why didn't Hillary Clinton begin to raise a stink and do something about them leading up to this election year? She's been planning this run for some years now; why didn't she use some of her clout to get people fired up to do away with the fraudulent caucuses?
And while I'm on the subject, why didn't YOU and others like you do anything about it? Don't you care about good government issues? Does having fraudulent caucuses only bother you when YOUR candidate loses them? Don't you care about democracy?
To be clear, I don't believe caucuses are frauds. Like ANY democratic process, they can be misused. People can cheat in them, I guess, just as people can cheat in primaries.
Te point is, I believe the real objection you have to caucuses is that Obama does well in them and Clinton does not. Because of that, you'll use any argument that demeans them, and Obama's wins in them, that suits your purpose. In this case, "fraud" is the tack you've chosen, but I think it speaks badly of your integrity.
by Mumphrey 2008-05-15 05:26AM | 0 recs
But I already told them they were right

oops

by hope monger 2008-05-14 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Methinks the boys didn't even read the diary just as methinks they wouldn't care if they did.

My story is a lot like yours, Alegre.  As a matter of fact from your description I think we were both at the same clinic defense at least once on a Jan. 22.

My memory - we arrived before sunrise at a clinic where a big confrontation was expected. The weather was below freezing.  Then about 8 a.m. somesone said we'd been out-foxed and gave us directions to another clinic on the other side of D.C.  So about 50 of us got in cars and took off to meet other defenders.  When we arrived we confronted insanity. Maybe a thoudand people being led by men on a platform preaching the gospel against wicked women and their female acolytes carrying signs like "you had your fun, now pay the price".

Before it was over, my friend was punched in the stomach by a fist with a rosary wrapped around it and I had cuts from being pushed through a glass door we were trying to hold.

A doctor, patient and nurse were held hostage in a car and never got into the clinic.

 On two other ocassions I flew from Florida (88 and 92) to participate in those great marches led by Kate Michelman of NARAL and various women's rights leaders. Police said we were half a million, we said twice that. I still have the banners we wore and a lot of souviner pins, plus numerous snapshots.  BTW, my daughter, then in college, attended both marches with me and brought friends along.

  And through the years both NARAL and Planned Parenthood have also had my financial support and Saturday morning escort duties.

  Today, I am both sad and furious.  For NARAL to turn its back on a woman who has fought for all our rights and the rights of women all over the world is unforgivable.

  I will always support women's health and reproductive rights but as I wrote and said to them today, NARAL has lost me forever.  Whatever I have to give will go to Planned Parenthood.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-14 08:01PM | 0 recs
Ice picking the wrong person, Tolstoy (dur)

Sort of a sad indictment on your politics when a man with 100% ratings from pro-choice groups is going to get thrown underneath the bus because you have an axe to grind.

Hey, I've voted for Anne Richards, Anne Eshoo, Boxer and Feinstein.  What black man have you ever voted for?

by Regenman 2008-05-14 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Ice picking the wrong person, Tolstoy (dur)

Jesse Jackson, 1988.  Only vote he got in my Ponte Vedra Fla. precient.

Anymore questions.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-14 08:06PM | 0 recs
Great!

So what's wrong with Obama, seriously?

by Regenman 2008-05-14 08:16PM | 0 recs
Besides having a Y chromosome

Let me take that off the table.

by Regenman 2008-05-14 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Great!

You don't really want to know so I won't indulge you.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-14 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Ice picking the wrong person, Tolstoy (dur)

Yeah, I've got one.

Why is it that endorsing the candidate who is almost certain to win is a setback for women's rights when he got a 100% rating?

Its a serious question.  Why does it HAVE to be a woman elected if they exist to further a particular issue and not a particular demographic?

His "present" votes were at the urging of Planned Parenthood, whom you still support.  Where's the beef?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-14 08:18PM | 0 recs
just so we get this straight again...

you're furious not due to any contrast on abortion rights. You're "furious" because you believe they are obliged to back the woman against the man in the race.

I have to ask- is that the rationale on which you base your own support in this race?

...because... here... I'd been thinking voting for the best candidate was the most important thing.

by Casuist 2008-05-14 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: just so we get this straight again...

Nonsense.  I'm "furious" because Hillary Clinton  supported NARAL years before anybody ever heard of Obama.  She's raised money for NARAL and among many other thing worked tirelessly for PlanB and access to it.

Voting for the best candidate is why I support Hillary Clinton - why she has my time, effort and money.  I believe she is the best candidate to represent the party against McCain and I believe she is the the most experienced and qualified person to be POTUS.

This is no time for on-the-job training.  In a few years Obama may be the right candidate.  IMHO, that time is not now.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-14 08:45PM | 0 recs
...the man's been in elected office...

for over a decade. Given certain votes (AUMF, by way of example), there's a few other things he won't have to "unlearn" from his experience, in contrast to Clinton.

I wasn't aware NARAL's decision was supposed to be made on the basis of tenure. In all frankness, the decision was likely made on the basis of Obama's essentially insurmountable lead. If there had been any contrast between the candidates on pro-choice issues an earlier endorsement would have made more sense.

On the issue at hand, there is little difference between the two candidates. They are both solidly and reliably pro-choice, and an endorsement of either would have been justified. Denigrating the organization on the basis of choosing Obama is therefore not based on any contrast on the issues... and within this thread seems to be based only on the gender of the candidates.

...and of course, as it happens, the endorsement had little if anything to do with contrasting with Clinton and everything to do with contrasting with McCain.

by Casuist 2008-05-15 12:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I'm sorry, but I take issue with this:

Methinks the boys didn't even read the diary just as methinks they wouldn't care if they did.

This is not the first time I've read this in one of alegre's diaries and/or in the comments of one.

Your statement is sexist, and implies that one must be a "boy" to disagree with alegre.  I will not apologize for being a female Obama supporter.

by asherrem 2008-05-14 08:12PM | 0 recs
&quot;boys&quot;? I am appalled!

We prefer "men" or "males" or "dudes" or "guys" or "bros" or "penis-havers" or "XYs".

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-14 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;boys&quot;? I am appalled!

Listen up kid.  I'm a very old grandmother.  You're all boys and girls to me.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-14 08:33PM | 0 recs
ha

Now you sound like my secretary, but since I'm only a little older than her kids, I forgive her (and you)

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-14 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: ha

Like I need forgiveness.  Ha!  My secretary is a boy - like you.  He's relatively competent and a damn good bartender.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-14 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: ha

Methinks you should lay off the vodka...

by hootie4170 2008-05-14 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: ha

Actually I drink gin.  Martinis, very dry with 2 olives.  Vodka is too wimpy for me.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-14 10:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Kate Michelman supports Obama.

Planned Parenthood of Illinois orchestrated his Present votes.

by terra 2008-05-14 11:31PM | 0 recs
I agree. NARAL should endorse Cynthia

McKinney instead for the general election.

They're endorsing the Democratic nominee only because they're partisan hacks.

by bobdoleisevil 2008-05-14 08:06PM | 0 recs
They aren't wrong

NARAL is going to line up behind the Democratic nominee. They, like many of us, believe that Senator Obama is the presumptive nominee. You can disagree with the math, I suppose, but I wouldn't take this endorsement as a knock on Senator Clinton's pro-choice credentials. It is simply a matter of wanting to back the Democratic nominee.

by chicagovigilante 2008-05-14 08:07PM | 0 recs
Actually, a lot of NARAL disagrees with

DC Naral.  E-mails have been flying around like crazy disavowing the DC endorsement - the State Chapters (the ones that actually count) are saying "Not us!!".

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-14 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, a lot of NARAL disagrees with

Alright, you think what you will.

by ragekage 2008-05-14 08:20PM | 0 recs
Read these and weep! The facts hurt,

don't they?

From The Confluence:

Received within the hour, a "Very Important Message from Karen Cooper " (Exec. Dir., NARAL Pro-Choice Washington) re this morning's NARAL endorsement of Barack Obama:

   ... None of us here, myself included, knew about it until a phone call this morning from D.C., and at that point it was a done deal. To be clear, we at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington remain neutral in the race ... We strongly disagree with NARAL Pro-Choice America's decision to endorse at this time.

   ... To endorse Obama at this point in the race is an unconscionable slap in the face to Senator Hillary Clinton.

   Furthermore, I want to make sure you know there is no transfer of funds between our affiliate and NARAL Pro-Choice America. We are separate entities.

   ... our Board of Directors is planning a meeting to discuss our affiliate's next steps.

Closed with a link to NARAL Pro-Choice Washington's press release on the subject.

Kudos, Karen! Any other blindsided affiliate sightings out there?

[UPDATES]

Likewise New York ... Missouri ... Pennsylvania ...

Others unofficially sound insulted-not-consulted, like Texas ...

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-14 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Read these and weep! The facts hurt,

Then can we take back all the Clinton endorsements from organizations like, say, AFSCME, where more state chapters have endorsed Obama even thought the national organization endorsed Clinton?

by ragekage 2008-05-14 08:52PM | 0 recs
So what you're saying is..

..do not give your money to an organization that has fought for a woman's right to choose for decades and, instead, give it to a campaign that has already lost so they can pay their campaign staff, the likes of Mark Penn, who blew the primary with their idiotic strategy....WTF??

by hootie4170 2008-05-14 08:08PM | 0 recs
Now what do you suppose BO will be

telling all of those evangelicals he's pandering to in Kentucky with his "Committed Christian" baloney?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/14/ 232531/861

Oh, I remember...I was against abortion before I was for it.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-14 08:14PM | 0 recs
Oh, you're trolling again?

Yawn.

by ragekage 2008-05-14 08:19PM | 0 recs
Nope - just asking a legitimate question...

to which you, again, have no answer except to attack the messenger.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-14 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Nope - just asking a legitimate question...

Uh huh. I might have more reason to respond to your comment, except that:

1) You posit in a way that suggests this is a heinous crime, as in, say, Clinton has never done such a thing.

2) Your past comments have shown you to be an anti-Obama supporter, rather than a pro-Clinton supporter.

3) Given the above two, it's really a waste of time to expend energy on a discussion that'll end up nowhere.

Good day, sir!

by ragekage 2008-05-14 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Now what do you suppose BO will be

I join you in your shock at Sen. Obama's forgetting one of the most fundamental Democratic beliefs: Religion is bad.

How dare he reach out to religious voters and try to convince them that social justice might be more important that social conservative stances like anti-gay marriage or abortion? Has he forgotten that even acknowledging these people means has to forsake any position he may have consistently held over the years and embrace their worst tendencies?

/snark

As far as I'm concerned, the great thing about Sen. Obama, besides his exemplary position on the issues and adoption of several areas no other candidate has touched (government transparency and accountability, a clear plan to restore our international standing, etc), is the fact he understands we can change the way things are. The religious don't HAVE to be the sole domain of the fringe right; there is a growing upswell of people sick of the own insanity in their ranks there who are ready to embrace a social justice message, if the Democrats don't demonize them for the sins of all whoe claim to be religious.

by werehippy 2008-05-14 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Now what do you suppose BO will be

I find it ironic... that we've been hearing how Obama isn't working hard enough to appeal to Appalachian voters, some of whom still apparantly believe he's a muslim... and yet when he tries to go and reaffirm his faith it gets distorted in a completely fabricated attack.

by Casuist 2008-05-14 08:46PM | 0 recs
A simple guide to myDD

Keith Olbermann
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry
John Edwards
Bill Richardson
Bob Casey
Claire McCaskill
Amy Klobuchar
Tom Allen
Deval Patrick
John Lewis
Donna Brazile
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid
Jay Rockafeller
Patrick Murphy
Joe Andrews
George McGovern
Tom Daschle
Jimmy Carter
NARAL
Patrick Leahy
Chris Dodd
Ned Lamont
Johnathon Singer
Kos
Arcade Fire (they did shows for Obama)
The Boss
Dick Durbin
Rachel Maddow
Betty McCollum

and a myDD friend list

Bill O'Reilly
Sean Hannity
Neil Cavuto
Rush!
Richard Mellon Scaife
Roger Ailes
Rupert Murdoch

It really is simple isn't it...

by Student Guy 2008-05-14 08:15PM | 0 recs
I forgot to include

the top list is an enemies list...

by Student Guy 2008-05-14 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: A simple guide to myDD

Dont forget to add Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough to the friends list.     And they say we drank the koolaid---pfft

by realistdem 2008-05-14 09:24PM | 0 recs
I will add it

I am thinking of expanding it into a diary...

by Student Guy 2008-05-14 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: A simple guide to myDD

Aren't Arcade Fire Canadian anyway?

by Ray Radlein 2008-05-14 10:37PM | 0 recs
Yeah

they are from Montreal (if my memory is correct).

by Student Guy 2008-05-14 11:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

alegre, you're wrong....again.

but fear not, this diary will be rec'd up into the stratosphere by the cheerleaders.

by citizendave 2008-05-14 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

As usual.

by lockewasright 2008-05-14 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Reproductive Rights is about women not having to submit to the desire of man, who has the capacity to impregnate her against her will.  As such it's a woman's issue, and frankly I don't think men should have a voice, when the whole point is they don't get a voice.  This group betrayed it's right to represent women in need of their rights over their own bodies.  For what?  To look cool to Barack?    

by anna shane 2008-05-14 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Uh, so they shouldn't endorse the candidate who is most likely to further their issue and policy?  Because he's a guy?

That's the most sexist thing I've read all day.  NARAL exists to further their issue.  That's what they're trying to do.

If Emily's List did something like this, I could understand it, but frankly attacking an issue-oriented group for being gender-blind in its endorsement does not speak well of some of you.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-14 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

i'm sure it is about looking cool.

by citizendave 2008-05-14 08:21PM | 0 recs
&quot;To look cool to Barack&quot;?

Of COURSE that's why NARAL did it!  If you treat them like airheaded high school girls just trying to impress the Big Man on Campus, then that's the ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION!

Thanks for treating NARAL with such disdain.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-14 08:21PM | 0 recs
So sperm is irrelevant?

There are nuanced positions and then "hate" position like yours.  Kudos to your belief that reproduction has absolutely nothing to do with a man.

Glad that you're a hermaphodite and that reproductive rights is solely about "rape".

by Regenman 2008-05-14 08:21PM | 0 recs
um,

don't you like having us male voices supporting you and advocating pro-choice positions?

Is it really so bad when men are willing to fight alongside you and defend your rights as well?

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-14 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I hope that was meant as a joke.

by fugazi 2008-05-14 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Men shouldn't have a voice?

You think men should refrain from voting for Hillary too?

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-14 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I literally can't think of a way to respond to this that isn't sarcastic, angry, or depressed.

Can anyone actually think that for a pro-choice organization endorsing a man they literally can find absolutely no fault with is a betrayal because his genitalia is an outie as opposed to an innie? The enlightened, bleeding edge of progressive thought is reduced to "we take care of our own, screw everyone else"?

by werehippy 2008-05-14 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

civil rights are human rights. I'd say no woman should have a choice about whether a man gets a vasectomy.  My opinion seems to have upset a few men, why? They want a say in whether or not the woman they have impregnated choses to stay pregnant?  And i got tr'd for stating my opinion, many times.   I'd like to be in charge of my own body, but rape is fact and unwanted pregnancy is fact, and the only redress is after this fact.  I guess it's hard for nice guys to realize the laws protecting women must cover them as well as the bad ones, if only everyone had control of their own bodies we wouldn't need these 'laws.'  There are some experiences no man can imagine sufficiently to get what it means to women.

by anna shane 2008-05-15 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Nope. I'm gonna tell 'em you're wrong. Thanks anyway, though.

by ragekage 2008-05-14 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I volunteered for NARAL for a while in the late 90's. I did phone work for the Oregon chapter, begging money and polling to identify pro-choice voters. I wasn't bad at it, but then we got into a period where the main phone work was scheduling volunteers for tabling, and I was incredibly bad at it, so I stopped going. I also contributed to the national alliance of abortion providers as part of the fund raising drive for the blogger Bighting Beaver. Oh, and just now I gave $25 to NARAL to support the work they do.

by letterc 2008-05-14 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Who do I talk to if I think NARAL made the right decision?

by unionfield 2008-05-14 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

www.naral.org

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-14 09:03PM | 0 recs
Sexism??

Let me get this straight...Diary upon diary have been written claiming sexism by the Obama campaign...The author constantly reminds us that the genders of the candidates should not play in the role of deciding our next nominee, with which I agree.

Now, said diarist, is outraged because a organization who has dedicated decades of work aimed at giving women the right to choose endorsed a male candidate who has 100% Pro-Choice rating is likely to be our nominee.  The diarist is outraged because they endorsed a male and not a female. Sexism?

Color me confused!!!

by hootie4170 2008-05-14 08:36PM | 0 recs
Okay....I don't understand.

Are you saying Obama is anti-choice?  Is he the enemy of women's reproductive rights or something?  

Why is this so disapointing to you?  I don't understand why Obama, (I guess by virtue of being a man?) is somehow inferior to Clinton in the area of women's reproductive rights.

it's not like they endorsed McCain.  Seriously...You guys (both Clinton and Obama supporters) are turning into the worse parodies of wing nuts.  Just because someone CHOSE to endorse Obama over Clinton (or visa versa) does not make them THE ENEMY!  Or in League with THE ENEMY!

Obama is not THE ENEMY.  Clinton is not THE ENEMY.  But you guys keep using that rhetoric. It is so destructive to the causes we all care about as democrats!

by DawnG 2008-05-14 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay....I don't understand.

Bingo.  This is about pounding the hell out of John McCain in order to put Barack Obama in the Oval Office and a slew of new Democrats in the House and Senate.

by Pat Flatley 2008-05-14 08:48PM | 0 recs
I don't care Which dem ends up...

...in the oval office as long as it's a DEM.  Our country can't take another 4 years of this bullshit!

PRIORITIES PEOPLE!

by DawnG 2008-05-14 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Wow what progressive asset will you people not trash?

Classy, really, really classy.

by lockewasright 2008-05-14 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Mark Penn thanks you for your money and requests that you find an 11 year old and take his bike.

by lockewasright 2008-05-14 08:49PM | 0 recs
Respect NARAL's right to choose!

I thought we were all pro-choice?  NARAL chose Obama, let's not smear them for that decision.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-14 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Respect NARAL's right to choose!

Obama choses to be pro abortion only when it suits him. He's the worse hypocrite on this subject. Men do not have a say on our reproductive rights until they grow a uterus!

by suzieg 2008-05-15 02:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Respect NARAL's right to choose!

You just outed yourself.  Nobody who supports reproductive rights calls it pro-abortion.  It's pro-choice.  Only a person who is pro-life would call it pro-abortion.

by The Distillery 2008-05-15 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

but given that they're backing a guy who voted PRESENT on key votes re our reproductive rights in the IL legislature

You have zero credibility, because you repeat talking points this like they're dings against Obama. Planned Parenthood has a bunch of quotes talking about how it was an intentional strategy that they endorsed and praised him for.

Why do you feel the need to attack him for his virtues?

by mattw 2008-05-14 09:01PM | 0 recs
well, NARAL is often wrong!

They've endorsed republicans (Chafee comes to mind) over democrats... etc

But let's look at what this is: a strategic move to blunt the impact of HRC's victory.  Look at what demographics he's lacking: working class, women, etc.  As Obama has helped Edwards financially,with, golly gee, an endorsement as a result, we can also look at how much money Obama promised NARAL.  And did he share is entire 1.5 million person donor list with them too?

That said, this endorsment is nothing but a cover up for Obama's huge deficit in demographics in states dems need to win the White House.  And no, NARAL's endorsement certainly does not help in the red states Obama wants: colorado, wyoming, south dakota, north dakota, montana, nebraska, or any of the southern states.

by 4justice 2008-05-14 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: well, NARAL is often wrong!

Still voting for McAncient, eh?

by hootie4170 2008-05-14 10:13PM | 0 recs
I'm curious to know

Where you read that Edwards endorsed Obama because he "has helped Edwards financially."

Or is that as true as the claim that Obama is a Muslim, or that he's anti-choice?

by Drew 2008-05-15 05:18AM | 0 recs
Let me get this straight

You want people to not donate to NARAL to fight for the preservation of reprodutive rights, and instead give it to the campaign where is will to to Penn, Wolfson and the others responsible for one of the worst run campaigns I remember.

And this is productive how?

by xenontab 2008-05-14 09:05PM | 0 recs
Is anyone else picking up on this?

Any time someone or some entity endorses Obama instead of Clinton, that person or entity is immediately questioned as having succumbed to the most unforgivable moral capitulation.

Today, it was John Edwards and NARAL.

There must be something wrong with them.

Bill Richardson?  He's a Judas, a sell-out.

McGovern?  '72 was ALL his fault and Obama's appeal is only to the same dumb eggheads and minorities that voted for McGovern.

Culinary Workers?  Let's push a lawsuit to undermine their access to polling stations because it favors them too much and that doesn't help Clinton.

There's definitely a distinct pattern here.

Either all of these people and organizations have truly lost it, or some people are just upset and lashing out.

What seems more likely?

by jaywillie 2008-05-14 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Wait.

Let me get this right.

You are asking people to stop sending money to a highly respected Women's Rights organization and instead to send that money to the campaign of a politician seeking power for her person?

Are you seriously considering throwing a major Human Rights organization under the bus for your candidate?

I am so sad for you.

by tecampbell 2008-05-14 09:16PM | 0 recs
Oh, and BTW I just donated 50$ to Naral.

My first time.

Thanks for encouraging me.

by tecampbell 2008-05-14 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, and BTW I just donated 50$ to Naral.

I made a pledge of $25 last week, just got the envelope.

NARAL at 35 years: That's the kind of experience I look for, no offense, Hillary.

by Bleeding Blue 2008-05-15 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Take a look at NARAL's blog entry about their endorsment.

Their members have alot to say and it's running about 20 to 1.

Shock, disgust, disappointment, remove from mailing list, send my money back to me.

Over 2000 post and more being added.

I don't need an opinion on whether they did the right thing or not. Their members are expressing their opinions clearly.

by J Rae 2008-05-14 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Anonymous blog comments do not equal the popular opinion, by any metric. Anyone can leave a comment on that blog, you don't have to be a member. All it takes is three or four anti-Obama or pro-Clinton blogs to say "go here and tell them what you think" and you have results like you see there.

by upstate girl 2008-05-14 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Well the Obama blogs got a late start and don't seem to have been able to catch-up very well.

by J Rae 2008-05-14 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Why does it matter from either party? There's zero way to tell who's serious, who's not, who's actually a NARAL supporter before tonight or not, who's a troll and who's legitimate. Rights are won not through astroturfing blog comments, but through volunteering and donating.

by upstate girl 2008-05-14 10:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

We don't play them games...

by hootie4170 2008-05-14 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Forgot to mention...if internet blog comments chose the nominee, Ron Paul would be the Republican candidate.

by upstate girl 2008-05-14 10:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I'm just curious how you can assert that all those posts are from NARAL members? Are you a member? My wife and I are, my sense is that all those blog posts are just people encouraged to go post, not members. Most likely encouraged by Emily's List which yelled about NARAL making a decision to endorse now rather than wait... you know following Emily's List's sterling example... og wait that didn't work too well as an example eh?

by notedgeways 2008-05-14 10:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong
They stated they were members.
I didn't post there and didn't ask anyone to prove it.
by J Rae 2008-05-14 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I can go on a Second Amendment organization blog that allows open posting and say I don't support their endorsement of whoever - it doesn't make it true.

Honestly, there's no way to make a case for the validity of anonymous blog comments or that they accurately reflect anything besides the persistence of a few people to swamp a server. Ask President Ron Paul.

by upstate girl 2008-05-14 10:53PM | 0 recs
NARAL is right.

I stand behind their decision to support the Democratic nominee 100%. This was a general election endorsement. Between John McCain (anti-choice) and Barack Obama (pro-choice) NARAL absolutely did the right thing and I commend them. President Obama will be a great defender of human rights.

by grasshopper 2008-05-14 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: NARAL is right.

They could have waited til the Democratic nominating process was over.  Their endorsement will not bring in any extra votes for Obama in the remaining states.  This was an orchestrated effort by the Obama team to humiliate and embarrass Hillary Clinton after her win last night.  That is what some of us are so pissed about - for me, anyway, it was the timing that made it such a betrayal.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-14 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: NARAL is right.
I don't think they were trying to get extra votes for Obama in the remaining states or trying to humiliate Sen. Clinton (they praised her in their press release). NARAL is encouraging their membership to come together to defeat a common threat.
  John McCain:
  • Voted anti-choice 125 out of 130 times in his congressional career.
  • Consistently voted to restrict access to abortion care.
  • Voted against measures to prevent unintended pregnancy.
  • Voted for the global gag rule, which prohibits federally funded family-planning clinics from giving women full information about their reproductive-health options.
  • Voted for and co-sponsored the Federal Abortion Ban.
  • Voted in favor of anti-choice Supreme Court Justices like Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas and Chief Justices like John Roberts
by grasshopper 2008-05-14 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: NARAL is right.

Yes which could have been achieved after the remaining primaries are over and a nominee is declared.  I call bullshit on the early endorsement.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Too late - I already wrote a comment in support of their decision hours ago.  NARAL has done a lot of things to alienate me, a 40 year old feminist woman, over the last few years, but this certainly isn't one of them.

by travelerkaty 2008-05-14 09:27PM | 0 recs
NARAL did not endorse Obama

over Hillary Clinton.  They endorsed Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, over John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.  Didn't you read the announcement?  

This was absolutely NOT an endorsement of Obama over Hillary.  Not in any way, shape or form.  It was an acknowledgement that nothing is more important than getting the Democrat elected.

by tibbs 2008-05-14 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

This truly is an example of sexism.

I commend NARAL for taking a stand and endorsing the candidate they believe will be the best defender of choice.

Emily's List and some other woman's organizations, as well as many feminists have shown this cycle that sexism can go both ways. Not supporting Obama because he's a man is also sexism.

I am all for organizations that advocate a cause like NARAL, and even in some cases advocating for increasing diversity in government (Emily's list on a congressional level), but when it comes to the highest office in the land, advocating the electing Hillary because she's a woman is just as bad as advocating electing Obama because he's black or McCain because he's white.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-14 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

They're begging for scraps.

Of course the Kos club HATES NARAL and has done everything in their power to hurt them.  

So NARAL is teaming with people who want them gone.  It's very sad.  Reminds me of an abused woman I used to know who went back to her husband.

Shudder.  

by bellarose 2008-05-15 04:26AM | 0 recs
Tell the Voters They're Wrong while you're at it

and howl at the moon!

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-14 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Supporting a woman because she is a woman is the most degrading thing you can do to them.
If you are supporting Hillary because she is a woman, then you are insulting her. You support her because you think she will be the best President, because you believe in her message or because of her substantive accomplishments.
The fact she has a vagina does not guarantee her anything, not even a pro-choice endorsement.

And NARAL should support whoever they want to support. Men can be just as pro-choice and as a strong pro-choice man, I am offended I could be passed over for an endorsement in your world, just because I have a penis.
Women can support men candidates and men can support women candidates.
Blacks can support white candidates and whites can support black candidates.
Enough with the cheap condescending identity politics.

HIllary is due the same respect than any other candidate (and unfortunately has not always gotten it from the media) but there should be no special rules for her. Any other candidate would have dropped out by now. She decided to stay and good on her but now she can't complain if other organizations see the writing on the wall and choose the other candidate. If she didn't want that humiliation she should have dropped out. If she stays, then alright. Fight goes on. And that means she still gets some punches.

by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-14 10:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I love it when the menz start lecturing us on what's degrading to women and what is not.

It's very funny.

by bellarose 2008-05-15 04:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong
I don't like when it s about men vs women or black vs whites or gay (I am gay) vs straight or whatever vs whatever.
If I can't understand how women feel because I am a man, then you shouldn't talk about men being sexists since you are a woman and you don't know anything about what men think.
See how silly that kind of logic is ?
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-16 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I predict a backlash for NARAL thanks to their jumping the gun.  Their state chapters are falling all over themselves to disassociate from HQ's short-sighted decision.  NARAL has already offended pro-choice women with numerous anti-choice endorsements.  There are plenty of more principled womens advocacy groups to choose from.

***A

by adrienne4dean 2008-05-14 10:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong
How is endorsing Obama anti-choice ?
The man got the same exact NARAL score on choice as Hillary ! The fact he is a man does not make him any weaker on abortion issues, you know.
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-14 10:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

When one person tells you that you have a tail, you can laugh at them.

When a second person tells you that you have a tail, they are probably crazy too.

If ten people tell you that you have a tail, you should probably turn around and check your ass to see if you have a tail.

What I love about the diaries ripping apart anyone who dares not endorse HRC, is the continued unwillingness for some to admit that HRC is not the best candidate, despite being literally buried in evidence to the contrary.

The thing I like next best about some of these diaries is the willingness for people to condemn all of our allies; First it was a few, then several, then thousands and now millions of brilliant hard working people that some here would say are misguided, or deluded, or bigoted, or uninformed, or politically motivated, or just plain stupid...all because they do not live in your cult of personality over HRC.

It started off with a few pundits that you all condemned.  Then you started condemning any politicians who backed Obama early. Then you started condemning all the voters in states that went to Obama. Then you started condemning the vast majority of Democrats as they let this "travesty" happen, and now you are willing to condemn folks like Edwards and Naral, both of whom finally got a spine and admitted Obama is a better candidate. These are people that are doing some of the most important work in the world, and you would condemn them for your whims.

Here is the thing folks.  If you still think that HRC is going to be the canidate, or that it will be unfair that she is not going to be the candidate, or that you will vote for a freaking war mongering republican if HRC is not the candidate...I hate to be the one that has to tell you, but...

You have a tail.

by mattjfogarty 2008-05-14 10:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Oh, and thanks for reminding me to write Naral a letter thanking them for doing the right thing and endorsing Obama.

by mattjfogarty 2008-05-14 10:56PM | 0 recs
You have a good diary.

And then you butcher it at the end. By making it about Obama/Clinton.

I think the problem here is the same reason with why they endorsed Republicans.  They are interested in Pro Choice candidates, if Republicans are Pro Choice they win.  They are not partisan or biased, they are neutral with a single agenda.  You are opposed to this endorsement because you are not neutral.  And while we may be disappointed they endorse Republicans, they are fullfilling their goals.

Obama and Clinton have voted the same on Reproductive Rights Legislation.  They have the same record in the Senate on everything important to this group, and in the future they will be exactly the same for the purposes of this groups agenda.  So it really does not matter who the Democratic Nominee is for them.  You are just unhappy that they must have come to the conclusion that the race is over and Obama has won.  For their purposes the strength of the candidate matters, and while they must believe Obama won, they do not want to see him further  weakend by a fellow Democrat.

So how are they wrong? They are fulfilling their mandate, not yours.

Wake up and smell the Reality.  The race is over, Hillary lost.

by Tumult 2008-05-14 11:19PM | 0 recs
Alegre, here's your problem

take a look at the other "pro-choice" organizations you list in your diary:

WCLA joins other prominent pro-choice organizations endorsing Hillary Clinton for President, including the National Organization for Women PAC, EMILY's List, Women's Campaign Forum, National Women's Political Caucus, Women's Political Committee.

Outside of Emily's list--an organization that is dedicated to electing women--there is one thing that all these groups have in common: the word "women" is in the title.  Their endorsements of Hillary Clinton are, clearly, designed to promote the advancement of women in politics, as is their right, especially with the first ever viable Democratic female candidate for President we've ever had.  NARAL, by contrast, is an organization supposedly dedicated to protecting abortion rights.

The only thing you mention for why Hillary might be better than Obama on choice is because Obama voted "present" on the bills you mentioned.  Which might be an effective argument, except for the fact that you know it's a lie:

"We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time . . . because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats."

So, NARAL endorses the Democratic nominee who is committed to preserving choice, and you're pissed because it wasn't the Democrat you wanted who is committed to preserving choice, when the Democrat you wanted stands virtually no chance at the nomination.

Your diary is specious at best, and dishonest at worst.

by hekebolos 2008-05-14 11:31PM | 0 recs
oh, and the other thing

you're going to campaign to defund NARAL because they endorsed the pro-choice Democrat who is likely to win the nomination over John McCain?

That's insane.

by hekebolos 2008-05-14 11:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Alegre- I had not heard this and I'm pissed, of course I would have expected NARAL to back the Democratic nominee after one had been chosen, but to back now before we have a nominee and to ignore a woman who has been fighting for reproductive rights to help PUSH her out of the race before the primary is over is a betrayal.

Some of these organizations seem to think their members are political leverage for themselves and sheep without a voice.
There are many great organizations doing great things and I think my money will be better spent elsewhere.

by Justwords 2008-05-14 11:51PM | 0 recs
Gang!

Hey Gang...Gang. Are you listening? Gang.

You can bet your ass Alegre is a paid blogger.  Buying into this bullshit at this point is no different than giving a flashing banner on Drudge Report the time of day.

I just sent $500 to our Democratic nominee.

and...

another $500 to NARAL to counteract any bullshit caused by the human flashing banner.

There is plenty more where that came from, gang!

by AlexScott 2008-05-15 12:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Gang!

Geez, dude, if there are plenty more $500s where those came from, will you send one to me? I'll happily endorse Obama if you want.

by Ray Radlein 2008-05-15 01:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Gang!

I don't care if she's paid or not-- I like her diaries.

by bellarose 2008-05-15 04:19AM | 0 recs
Re: You

What's up with the puerile mockery?  And if you have proof, as you say, that Alegre is a "paid blogger", by all means please bring it on.  Otherwise, you are simply making hollow and calumnious accusations, AlexScott.

by Caldonia 2008-05-15 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

It's unbelievable for me to believe they would betray us like that. Endorsing a man who asked the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood permission to vote "present" 7 times on legislation which banned abortions without an exception for the health or to save the life of a woman all to protect his political ambitions! He put women's lives at risk for politics! I could never, ever vote or consider voting for a coward like that!

by suzieg 2008-05-15 02:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

have you looked at the supreme court from up on your high horse? it's not even worth engaging your claims about obama putting his political ambitions before saving womens lives (ahem, pull your head out of the sand). but go ahead, don't support obama, and what do you think is going to happen to womens lives if mccain gets to pick replacements for ginsburg and stevens? are you serious? have you looked at the makeup and decisions of the supreme court this year?  

wake up. grow up. this isn't about you and your wounded feelings bc clinton lost the nomination. supporting obama will have far reaching consequences for the lives of women bc mccain will pick two more justices in the mold of roberts and alito.

by j cantarella 2008-05-15 03:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Speaking of high horses...

Why support NARAL when they've supported Joe "Rape Gurney" Lieberman AND Alito?

Yeah, like you said, this isn't about YOU.  It's about a broken organization that is more interested in fund raising than actually making a difference in women's lives.

by Caldonia 2008-05-15 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

i'm not advocating supporting naral. please. my words are right there to be read.

my point is that supporting obama as strenuously as possible, so that he can pick the next two SCJ's, is the best way, as you say, to "actually make a difference in women's lives."

by j cantarella 2008-05-19 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

This is RATINGS ABUSE.

by bellarose 2008-05-15 04:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

SOROS

I'm reporting you for ratings abuse.

by bellarose 2008-05-15 04:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

But she's lying.  THAT doesn't bother you?

by Jess81 2008-05-15 04:51AM | 0 recs
That's a disgusting lie

Shameful

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-15 05:30AM | 0 recs
yawn.

super yawn.

by j cantarella 2008-05-15 03:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

What I find offensive is one progressive group (Emily's List) and progressive individuals coming out to criticize another progressive group's endorsement.

Normally each person or organization makes its own endorsement and that speaks for itself.

No union criticized another union for its endorsement.  

And those who bring up the present vote are either unaware that this done as part of a legislative strategy crafted with Planned Parenthood or they are deliberately repeating a misleading line that is campaign spin.

"We worked on the 'present' vote strategy with Obama," said Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood, an abortion rights group. "He was willing to vote 'no', and was always going to be a 'no' vote for us."

Sutherland said Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation. "They were worried about direct mail pieces against them. The more senators voted present, the harder it was to mount an issues campaign against the senator."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec ker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_abor ti.html

by politicsmatters 2008-05-15 03:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Every single woman in America who supports Hillary
and choice should write and cancle their membership as I have done. It is well beyond belief that they would choose to vote for a man who voted "present" instead of a woman who has spent her life defending choice.

obama will never be POTUS. Never. By the millions we will leave this party for the ABUSE that has been reaped on Hillary and her supporters from day one.

A vote for Obama at this point is a vote for violence aganist women. The lies, cheating and stealing of votes from millions of voters will NEVER be rewarded. We will bury you come November.

by IndyRobin 2008-05-15 03:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I'm not a member.  Should I write them, anyway?

by bellarose 2008-05-15 04:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I gave you mojo to counteract the RATINGS ABUSE that's going on on this thread.

I'm reporting it to the moderators, too.

by bellarose 2008-05-15 04:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Ratings abuse?  The post called supporting Obama supporting violence against women.  I think that merits the troll rating.

by proseandpromise 2008-05-15 04:20AM | 0 recs
Accusing Dem Candidates of promoting violence

against women requires Troll Rating or Hide Rating.

I'd give one now, but Admin pulled my ability for HRing Little Otter for calling Senator Obama a "Pig".

Of course, her words should get her account deleted, and come June 3 that may be the case...

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-15 09:32AM | 0 recs
My god! Pull yourself together.
Take a break from the blogs for a few weeks.
A vote for Obama is a vote for violence against women? Look at this clearly for a moment. You really need to take a break, you're way too emotionally involved. The election is over, even Hillary is starting to endorse Obama, which I promise you she will do. Take a break. Come back in a few weeks and you'll see that Obama is WAY better than McSame.
by luckymortal 2008-05-15 07:10AM | 0 recs
alegra

this is getting very tiresome.

ask yourself:

what would hillary do?

i'll be waiting for the answer.

she has more grace than her ardent "supporters" here at mydd, and i don't think it is just politics.

its latte  time.

by citizendave 2008-05-15 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Alegre,

I'm sorry the Obama-bullies feel completely free to troll and hijack your diaries.

How they think this helps their cause is beyond me.  I think they simultaneously want us to go away AND vote for their candidate in the Fall.

I'm not doing either.

by bellarose 2008-05-15 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Bellarose,

I'm sorry that you view the presentation of different positions as trolling and hijacking.  A public site is a place for people to express their views.

Not all pro-choicers agree.
Not all women agree.
Not all feminists agree.

And we should talk about those differences, not shut down dialogue.

I most certainly don't want any feminist, any progressive, any woman, any pro-choicer to go away. I want us to talk and to work together and with others with whom we disagree.

That's how we build a movement to take power. And isn't empowerment what this is all abaout?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-15 04:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I didn't vote for Clinton or Obama in my primary, and I'm voting Dem in November no matter who is on the ballot.  I'm just not getting all the vitriol spewed at NARAL in this diary.  They disagree with you, oh well, move on.  Why seek to create havoc with people who do not share the same view as yourself as to who should be President?  It's this kind of garbage that makes me want to financially support Obama if this is how people who are her constituency act.

The most important thing in November is to elect a Democrat and make sure our reproductive rights are protected at any cost and not tear down one of the major organizations in this country that support that view.

by Kyrial 2008-05-15 04:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Bellarose,

I'm sorry that you view the presentation of different positions as trolling and hijacking.  A public site is a place for people to express their views.

Not all pro-choicers agree.
Not all women agree.
Not all feminists agree.

And we should talk about those differences, not shut down dialogue.

I most certainly don't want any feminist, any progressive, any woman, any pro-choicer to go away. I want us to talk and to work together and with others with whom we disagree.

That's how we build a movement to take power. And isn't empowerment what this is all about?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-15 04:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Dear Alegre,

I'm in a quandary over the Senate race in North Carolina this year.  I want to support the pro-choice candidate, but I can't tell which one that is.  They're both women!  How am I supposed to know who supports legal and safe access to abortion when both the candidates are female?

Obviously, I can't look at their voting record, or their platform on their website, or the speeches they've made, as obviously this means nothing.  If I wanted to use that worthless information, I might have been fooled into believing that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have extremely positive views on pro-choice issues.  I might actually have been tempted to vote for a man!  

Thanks so much for making it clearer for us: if you're pro-choice, vote for the woman.  Should I just flip a coin between Libby Dole ("Rated 0% by NARAL") and Kay Hagan ("I am a strong supporter of a woman's right to choose") in November?

by Wayward Son 2008-05-15 04:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Hey sweetie, until you experience the social and psychological effects of sexual hypocrisy and your reproductive freedoms on the line constantly, then you'd have a better understanding why many of Hillary's female supporters might feel betrayed by NARAL right now. I'm not saying that a man cannot empathize, but you really don't know what you are talking about.    

by grlpatriot 2008-05-15 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

NARAL did not support your candidate, and instead supported a candidate with a similar record on the one issue of importance to that organization.  The candidate they chose has a much better path to the nomination, and will almost certainly be the nominee.

At that point, all of the 'betrayed Hillary supporters' will be faced with a choice.. rejoin with NARAL in support of Obama, or become an agent of the anti-abortion crowd in electing McCain.

At that point, it will be interesting to see who "betrays" whom.

by Wayward Son 2008-05-15 05:24AM | 0 recs
Hey &quot;sweetie&quot;

I just thought Obama's "sweetie" comment was so cute when he was talking to a female reporter. Gosh, he is so evolved. NOT!

Obama is such a wiener and NARAL is a sell out. I guess Obama promised NARAL something it wanted (access to his donor list). Good luck getting the kiddies' attention or their dollars to support anything other than Obama. NARAL has lost most (if not all) of Hillary's female supporters, women who have actually worked for, protested for, and financially supported women's reproductive rights. Good luck when McCain's supreme court overturns Roe V Wade.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-15 04:49AM | 0 recs
Sock puppet trolls...

... I'd really love to have an admin sweep through here to check on how many actual people recc'd this and how many are sock puppets ....

by Purplepeople 2008-05-15 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Sock puppet trolls...

Ditto.  How many commenters are sockpuppets?

Cheers!

by Caldonia 2008-05-15 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Sock puppet trolls...

The fun ones are where you see three replies in a row from the same person that are (slightly) different variations on "ur teh awsum!!!1!". I feel like those users should either be (a) banned on the spot for gross incompetence or (b) moved to a special thread where people can see how not to do it.

by Purplepeople 2008-05-15 06:29AM | 0 recs
Wellesley Motto:

"There's a special place in hell for women who don't help one another."

If the premiere all-women's college on the planet has this motto, (with 1/2 of women CEOs being Wellesley alums and Wellesley being one of the top feeder schools for top business, law and med schools...), then NARAL national leadership: you've been advised.

by dcrolg 2008-05-15 06:10AM | 0 recs
TRd

because:

  1. the poster is advocating for sex-based discrimination,
  2. contains a fallacious appeal to religious sentiment,
  3. intends to bolster its advocacy of discrimination by saying that, oooh, IMPORTANT PEOPLE think discrimination is good, which is a fallacious appeal to authority and:
  4. It attacks women by implying that women are only capable of reaching high places by forming a "girl's club" and using discriminatory hiring practices.

This sort of hateful, self-destructive sentiment bolstered with irrational or intentionally misleading arguments belongs on the hate-pages of the far-right wing. Not on a progressive blog.

by luckymortal 2008-05-15 07:04AM | 0 recs
I'd simply advised NARAL of Wellesley's

motto.  That was my intent.  The rest was your peculiar interpretation.

If you can divine others parts of my words as insight into my behavior, and provide further analyses, pls advise me as to your counselling certification. Thanx.

Otherwise, NARAL be advised of Wellesley's motto.

by dcrolg 2008-05-15 12:44PM | 0 recs
Right, for the big NARAL Vs. NRTL trivia match

Sorry I mistakenly assumed you were taking part in the discussion of NARAL's endorsement in the Primary.

Silly me.

Obviously, not being a certified councilor, I make the mistake of thinking that people are taking part in a discussion when they add things to a discussion. But it turns out they're really just stating some random trivia. Go figure. You trivia nut, you.

But yeah, since NARAL might be reading this:

Blad E. coli is a non-pathogenic bacterium found in the rectum of the American Cockroach.

You know, just so as NARAL is advised of that fact too.

And while we're just advising NARAL of some random facts with no MEANING whatsoever:

John Gibbons was a colonel at the battle of Little Bighorn.

You know, just so as they're advised of that. For the big trivia tourney.

Oh, and for the sake of trivia, you might want to look up the correct conjugation of the verb "to be."

Anyway, cheers! And remember, there are between 17 and 20 living penguin species!

by luckymortal 2008-05-16 10:10AM | 0 recs
You can blame NARAL

As good as Clinton is on thier issues, NARAL decided to endorse the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States.

That's why they endorsed Obama, it wasn't any betrayal or insidious plot to undermine Hillary.

They see what the whole world sees.

by Silence Do Good 2008-05-15 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell Alegres They're Wrong

Having accounts on every viable candidate's website and having joined groups on each site, I get some interesting emails.

Last night I got this one (names removed to protect the guilty):

> Just received this from John Edwards<needless to say, I will NOT be contributing< but here¹s an email address:</p>

> So, feel free --EXPRESS YOURSELF!!!  ;-D
> LOL

From a blogger for Senator Clinton in followup to Senator Edwards appeal for the college fund for underpriviledged children he and his wife have created.  "Laugh Out Loud" indeed: it is more a time for bitter tears of shame when we sink so low.

I have removed myself from that list.  It is not worth the deep disgust I feel reading things like that to gain further insight into the motivations of the supporters of one of our presidential candidates.  I will tell you that I have not seen anything as vile from McCain, Edwards or Obama supporters, and that this comment was not unusual on the group in question.

This same group had laughingly advocated attacking NARAL yesterday.  As our misguided colleague Alegre does today.

Shame on all of them.

I remain convinced that the candidates of both parties do not themselves openly support these types of actions, and I place the blame squarely at the feet of the supporters who promote them.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-15 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Wow, continuing to spread these lies about the guy who's going to be THE PRO-CHOICE CANDIDATE in November is just insane. Get it into your head:

1. Obama worked with Planned Parenthood on the present vote.

2. In its legislative context, the "present" vote was the same as a "no" vote.

3. He was planning to vote "no" on principle, but:

4. The "present" vote was a SMART strategy by an effective leader who's shown that he can bring people together to actually protect reproductive rights in a smart way, as opposed to just shooting ourselves in the foot so we can pout about how bad those Repblicans treat us.

By the way, attacking our nominee with unfair LIES is a good example of the latter.

by luckymortal 2008-05-15 06:47AM | 0 recs
I don't get it

Are you saying that Obama won't support women's reproductive rights?  

Is there really evidence to support that?  

Clinton's the much better candidate/President, but seems that they both are good on this issue no?

by activatedbybush 2008-05-15 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

You've got to be shitting me...this idiotic diary makes it to the hit err...i mean rec list?

WTF.

Because if Obama's our nominee you can bet your @ss we'll see McCain in the WH and anti-choice justices nominated / appointed to the Supreme Court and the lower courts.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is there, you bet on McCain, and I'll bet on Obama?

by obscurant 2008-05-15 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I'm wondering if others will follow you over the cliff.

A pro-choice group endorsing a pro-choice Democrat who has a perfect voting record on choice IS A BETRAYAL?

This has gotten to the point that it's truly nonsensical.  The irrational hatred of Barack Obama by some on this site and the willingness to throw to the wolves any who would dare "betray" Hillary by supporting Obama is beyond ridiculous.  

by freedom78 2008-05-15 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong
I'm wondering if others will continue contributing money to a national organization that supports Republicans, Joe "Rape Gurney" Lieberman and Alito? Now that's irrational.
by Caldonia 2008-05-15 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

NARAL just ironed Barack's shirt.

by sgary 2008-05-15 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Ha Ha! I get it! It's funny because NARAL and ALL WOMEN WHO SUPPORT OBAMA are submissive, bare-foot-and-pregnant-in-the-kitchen types who only back Barrack because they want to be dominated by a strong male president!

Thanks for showing that women HRC supporters can be anti-woman sexist pigs too.

by luckymortal 2008-05-15 11:54AM | 0 recs
No Alegre as always YOU ARE WRONG

You are wrong for our victory in the fall.

You want to burn everyone who hasn't bowed their head.

Go to this thread for positive progressive conversations about the IMPORTANCE of reproductive rights.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1051 15/703

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 08:43AM | 0 recs
Local NARALs not at fault

Here is the response I got to my very angry email to my local NARAL office:

Thank you for writing.  I want to make clear that it was NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC that has endorsed Senator Obama, and not our state affiliate.  We are separate entities and had no part in the endorsement process.  We at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington remain neutral in the race between Senators Clinton and Obama, and we strongly disagree with NARAL Pro-Choice America's decision to endorse at this time.

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are 100% pro-choice and have been vocal advocates for the right to choose.  Both are co-sponsors of the Federal Freedom of Choice Act, which would put the protections of the Roe v. Wade into federal law.  

Furthermore, I want to make sure you know there is no transfer of funds between our affiliate and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Thank you again for writing, and for your commitment to the right to choose.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXX
Executive Director

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Local NARALs not at fault

Oh and by the way interesting that it was a PAC group that endorsed.  

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Local NARALs not at fault

Wow, HRC is more important than civil rights?

Jennifer, listen to what you are saying.

Its over!

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Local NARALs not at fault

What the hell are you talking about?  I posted the letter I received from the local office to try and difuse some of the blowback against the local chapters who are remaining neutral.  So what does that have to do with civil rights and what the hell do I need to listen to myself for?  

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I would not respond to this diary if i were you.  The author is a Clinton dead-ender who says Obama will lose because they are going to make sure it happens so they can blackmail us into chosing a women.  We are being blackmailed and held hostage by dead-ender Democrats for Hillary Clinton.  These are pepople who care nothing but for the ambition of their candidate who did not win and they (like their candidate) can not take it or accept it.  THIS IS OVER. The choice process is over Obama is the winner.  If you must elect McCain because u feel Clinton was the only one who deserved it thats you deal but be honest about it because this "Obama can't win" crap is only true if you make it so.

by affratboy22 2008-05-15 09:09AM | 0 recs
whatever.

you. still. lose.

by rabidnation 2008-05-15 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I hate the break it to you, but just because Hillary is a woman does not mean that a pro-choice group has to endorse her and that any other choice is astonishingly stupid. Obama is also incredibly pro-choice. i do not see how you could feel "betrayed" by a pro-choice group when they back a pro-choice candidate, even if it is not the candidate that you are supporting.

by WashDem 2008-05-15 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re:Typical of NARAL.

These idiots endorsed Senator "Short drive" Lieberman over Ned Lamont, that's all you need to know about them. They also used Alito as a pretext for getting money from members, and then did nothing to fight his confirmation.  I stopped giving them money long ago.

by half nelson 2008-05-15 10:31AM | 0 recs
Just donated to NARAL, kthxbye! nt

by steampunkx 2008-05-15 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

Hmmm, it seems to me that if 38% of Hillary's supporters say they are going to vote for McCain who has vowed to overturn Roe V Wade it stands to reason that Obama is the true champion of reproductive rights.

by HGM MA 2008-05-15 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

The 44 cents is a nice touch.

by AK Democrat 2008-05-15 11:47AM | 0 recs
GANG. DIDJA. KNOW.

ALEGRE:

TWO WORDS:

PAID. BLOGGER.

You people are so ridiculous for buying into this wackiness.  Who has time to write multiple 89 page essays a day in relentless support of Hillary Clinton?

Someone who's getting nearly 5 grand to do it, of course!

Here's how it works, gang! Didja know?! Didja!!!!

According to the Center's fellowship application, CIM offers bloggers a three-month, renewable fellowship which includes such perks as "a stipend of $4500 to be paid over 3 months", "editorial mentorship from experts in the field of blogging and/or journalism", access to expensive databases such as LexisNexis, as well as free legal advice, training and technical support. (14)

Because CIM fellowships expire after three months, CIM "fellows" are always on the hot seat. If CIM is satisfied with the blogger's performance, it will renew his fellowship. Otherwise, it will not. Plainly, CIM bloggers have much to gain if they toe the party line -- and much to lose if they fail to satisfy their benefactors.

CIM does not publish a full list of its bloggers. We can only speculate on their number. However, the CIM website does provide a "select" list of some of its more prominent "fellows". These are shown in the chart below. (15)

Copy and paste any of that into google to find out more for yourself. Enjoy. Gang.

by AlexScott 2008-05-15 11:53AM | 0 recs
NARALs Timing Was Foolish

...but they did not endorse Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.  They endorsed him over John McCain.  It is their belief (and the belief of many, many others) that the question of the Democratic nomination is all but settled.

I know to many (especially many here) this is still an open question.  And I know that the REALITY is that FACTUALLY it is still an open question.  But what NARAL did hear was hitch their wagon to the man they consider to be the presumptive nominee.  I do not think it was intended at a swipe at Clinton's reproductive rights record even though their bizarre choice to endorse now makes it look that way.

Like I said I can't tell them they're wrong, because they're not wrong.  All their endorsement actually says is that Barack Obama would be a thousand times better for reproductive rights in this country than John McCain would, and they're right.  If I communicated anything to them at all it would be, "It was dumb of you to release this endorsement now.  You could have just kept the exact same wording under wraps until after our convention, or better yet just spent the next few months going after McCain."

But there isn't anything specious about their actual endorsement; That's all true.

by TooFolkGR 2008-05-15 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

NARAL is quite right. Obama will be a fine candidate on women's issues.  It's sad to see how reverse sexism has blinded so many otherwise intelligent and perceptive women on this site.

by Beekeeper 2008-05-15 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I understand your frustration.  But I think NARAL made the right choice, and here's why: Obama is the presumptive nominee.  I know you may not like that -- I wouldn't like it if I were a Clinton supporter.  But the numbers do not lie.  The Democratic nomination is decided by delegates.  Not by popular vote, not by electoral vote, and not by who won the PA primary.  Hillary Clinton cannot catch Barack Obama in the ONLY metric that matters: delegates.  So NARAL decided to make their GE endorsement now, rather than waiting.  That way, they can start working to get a Democrat back in the White House NOW, instead of waiting.  Make no mistake: Roe v. Wade is in grave danger, and if McCain is elected it is probably doomed.

I understand the disappointment here; I really do.  But I hope that, over the next couple of months, Hillary's many loyal supporters will realize that Obama cares about the same issues that you do.  That he, too, has a 100% record from NARAL.  That he shares the same values and hopes and ideals as so many of you; and that ultimately, if we want to protect our right to choose, we must elect a Democrat, even if that Democrat wasn't our first choice.

by writerswrite 2008-05-15 03:05PM | 0 recs
Three Cheers for NARAL

for backing a candidate who supports choice AND has the Democratic nomination all but wrapped up.  

by Bargeron 2008-05-15 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell NARAL They're Wrong

I'm surprised no one you've talked to could answer this:

If god is never wrong then why did he give us the intellect and curiosity to discover ways to safely terminate a pregnancy?  AND why did he put me on this earth - a pretty smart and PRO-CHOICE woman who's active in defending my reproductive rights?

I'm an atheist (former catholic) and the answer is easy. God gave us free will. You're logic above is tantamount to saying: "God gave us the intellect to create nuclear power, therefore nuking country XYZ isn't wrong according to God." Of course it's wrong (depending on the circumstances I suppose) and a complete non sequitor to boot. We have intellect, curiosity, etc but also free will, which means we can use that intellect and technology we create for both benign and "sinful" purposes. Our choices--moral or not--have nothing to do with whether God is ever wrong.

I don't believe in God, but that would be the argument--Free Will.

by bigdaddy 2008-05-15 05:43PM | 0 recs
Wow, the Obama supporters are hot and heavy

In this comment section, troll rating and arguing over and over again.

They must find this diary very threatening. Could it be because this is a major issue for women, and seeing women completely appalled at the endorsement by NARAL of Obama is a bit scary?

As with so many other things, it is more comforting to have a person that is strongly for the freedom of choice rather than one that is a bit tepid. When Casey endorsed Obama in Pennsylvania, it made a lot of women nervous. Casey is pro-forced birth, so his endorsement doesn't say much about Obama. Obama even made sure he was photographed and videoed with Casey. Things like that really make a difference to people when it comes to something that is life and death for them.

Women don't forget those things, ya know?

by splashy 2008-05-15 11:12PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads