Comments on: Breaking: NARAL Pro-Choice America Endorses Obama

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:17:34 +0000

Well the joke is on NARAL PAC. seems today Senator Obama and the DNC have announced that lobbyists and PAC’s will be banned from donations and “PAC’s WILL NO LONGER HAVE UNDUE INFLUENCE”.

You shot yourselves in the foot. Godd Luck and goodbye, NARAL

By: Donna

Donna — Sat, 24 May 2008 22:05:40 +0000

I congratulate NARAL for recognizing that the sooner we come together as pro-choice Democrats and take the fight to McCain, the better. After all, Obama is clearly going to be the nominee. Why wait?
I have no problem with Hillary remaining in the race through June 3, but she should acknowledge reality, and when the primaries end, endorse Obama immediately.

By: Feminist Jen

Feminist Jen — Wed, 21 May 2008 16:29:52 +0000

Lofty morals aside, I think it’s bad business to piss off a huge portion of your donation base.

feminist love,
jen

By: Heather Collins

Heather Collins — Tue, 20 May 2008 17:32:50 +0000

The NARAL announcement stinks of something underhanded, just like so many of the other endorsements of Obama over Clinton. How is that? Well, it babbles on about Obama while ignoring the alternative, Clinton, and thereby betrays a guilty discomfort. It doesn’t give a single instance where Obama’s pro-abortion stand is stronger than Clinton’s. I’ll tell you what it DOES do, though. It mentions “money, message, and manpower”, then puts “womanpower” in parentheses. Thanks, NARAL, for making women once again the parenthetical gender.

MONEY is the key that unlocks this puzzle. Money makes the world go ’round. Obama has essentially paid off the people endorsing him, with a promise of untold campaign riches. from his unprecedented fund-raising performance in the primaries. Me, I’m pretty sure that well is going to dry up by the time the general campaign gets underway.

By: Portland

Portland — Tue, 20 May 2008 05:32:58 +0000

The whole thing about women supporting women and NARAL not supporting Senator Clinton is one point in NARAL’s decision. The main issue is that NARAL supported the candidate that is LESS likely to beat McCain. Just wait until the Republicans bring out the dirt on Obama! It is there and Senator Clinton couldn’t because he is a Democrat. The Republicans are waiting patiently and then the Karl Rove playbook will fall into place. And, Obama will not last in the general election. NARAL naively chose in this race and that is a problem for the future of the organization.

By: Doug

Doug — Sun, 18 May 2008 14:28:23 +0000

NARAL is only a women’s organization if you think that abortion is an issue that only affects women. And two of NARAL’s three founders were men.

By: marie

marie — Sat, 17 May 2008 17:37:41 +0000

Peggy Orenstein wrote a great short piece in The New York Times Magazine this weekend about how and when to explain to her 4 year old daughter about the misogyny towards Clinton.

How do you explain to your daughters that it is okay for NARAL or any other women’s organization to endorse a man over a woman?

By: Concerned American

Concerned American — Sat, 17 May 2008 15:07:10 +0000

I am very disappointed by the NARAL endorsement. The decision has upset NARAL’s longtime supporters and it will be devastating to the organization. But the truth is the endorsement will not matter to most Americans. Americans are not making their decision on a candidate based on the abortion issue, they are deciding based on the economy and Iraq. Unfortunately, if Obama is the nominee, he cannot beat McCain. Obama cleverly strategized to win the nomination by winning the caucus and small states. He trained volunteers to dominate the caucuses in Iowa. This was repeated in other caucus states. Caucus states give more delegates per vote than primary states do. For instance, Obama won in Iowa by 13,000 votes and gained 13 delegates. Clinton won in PA by 200,000 votes and gained 10 delegates. Obama has won a lot of small states that add up, mostly in the west. But these western states will not support him in the general against McCain. Only the west coast, CA, OR, WA will support Obama. Clinton could win some of the western states – NV, NM, CO. Obama will not win the south, not even FL. Clinton can win in some of the south and definitely FL. Clinton can win the working class states of the midwest – KS, NE, MO, IN. He will not win PA, Ohio, NY, NJ, MO. Clinton will definitely win PA, OH, NY, NJ and all of New England. Obama will win upper New England. It will not be enought for him to win against McCain. The Rebuplicans are waiting to do their “swift boat attacks” until he is the nominee. They do not want Clinton to win the nomination as she can easily win against McCain. She leads him in Gallup polls and Gallup is the most reliable American poll. When the Republicans start their attack on Obama all hell will break out. It does not matter if they can dig up any dirt on Obama they will create it and it will work. The underlying racism in the country will surface in the voting booth. The media supports Obama and that should be a sign to the left that he is not the one to support. This is the same media that gave Kerry and Gore a hard time in 2004 and 2000. Remember how we all felt about the media then? Do you think it has suddenly become dignified? The media and the Republican pundit support for Obama is all a strategy. Clinton is not divisive. That is the media presentation and creation of her. If she was divisive she would not be such a successful Senator for New York. She is respected in the US Senate for working hard and collaborating with Republicans. This is not divisive. Her success as a Senator has the right scared and the media reflects this. Those Americans who cannot sift through media propaganda make bad decisions when voting and that affects all of us terribly.

By: Diana

Diana — Sat, 17 May 2008 05:39:20 +0000

I totally agree with Ms. Malcolm. NARAL gives no reason for not waiting till the primary is over. Hillary Clinton was pro choice when no one had even heard of Obama. It’s almost stereotypical female behavior, throw your girlfriend over to get close to the new, cool guy. I thought NARAL was tougher then that.

By: Mnemosyne

Mnemosyne — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:12:36 +0000

One is that Obama’s comments with regard to his daughters about his support for abortion were abysmal. He mentioned something about not punishing (keeping the child) them for making a mistake (sex).

I think you’ve missed the context for that remark. He wasn’t saying out of the blue that teen pregnancy is automatically a mistake. He was pointing out that “pro-life” people talk about how abortion should be outlawed because women and girls have to “face the consequences,” aka have the child even if they don’t want it, and not be allowed to escape their responsibilities by getting an abortion. His argument was that a child should not be used to punish its mother, not that teenagers should be forced to get abortions.

But I did vote for McCain in his earlier bid for the oval office against Bush. Can I feel comfortable voting for him over Hillary – hell no! Obama – I am unsure.

So you’re more comfortable voting in favor of more conservative judges, more economic crises and 100 years in Iraq than for a guy whose supporters annoy you?