NARAL Sticks a Finger in Our Eye

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted May 14, 2008 | 09:54 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

The emails started to fly around yesterday in the late afternoon with the urgent subject line, "NARAL ENDORSES OBAMA!" In pained tones the senders, my circle of Hillary supporters, expressed their shock that one of the preeminent pro-choice organizations, one that they have supported in good times and bad, had double-crossed them in the eleventh hour of the presidential campaign.

I live in Westchester County, NY, this is Hillary country. I am an ardent Hillary supporter but nothing like many of my Hillary friends here who are often fifteen, twenty, thirty or more years older. They built the feminist movement in this country, and they fought for my right to choose, or what's left of it, today. Hillary's campaign is as much about them as it is about her, and today NARAL betrayed them as much as they did her.

One of the most frustrating and shocking aspects of the reporting of Hillary's campaign has been the cynical reporting of what Hillary means to her supporters. How is it possible that she raised so much money from small donors when she asked in March and April? The answer is simple, because they believe in her and in her campaign! In begrudging fairness to the media, Hillary's own campaign didn't seem to understand or appreciate the depth of these feelings either until it was too late. But the depth of pride and ownership that women across demographics feel for Hillary are very real. And now, here were my Hillary friends, with tens of their friends copied, surging into my inbox with their messages:

"Disgraceful!" Barbara

I want to crawl up in the fetal position but instead I have to go report as chair of the League of Women Voters Nominating Committee. I just tried calling NARAL and the office is closed." Alisa

"I will never give another penny or any support or advocacy to or for the organization." Hannah

In her announcement on Huffington Post yesterday, the president of NARAL, Nancy Keenan, wrote that the decision to announce their endorsement while the primary competition between two pro-choice candidates is ongoing is because, "for the sake of the reproductive-rights movement, we need to put any perceived differences behind us, and get to work putting Sen. Obama in the White House."
Really, the entire future of the pro-choice movement rests on spitting in the eye of the strongest woman candidate in the history of the country, rather than waiting three more weeks to put whatever organizational muscle it has left after today to work for Obama, that this sliver of times will make the difference between winning and losing in November? It is unimaginable that the NAACP would have pulled the rug out from under it's own constituency like this if the roles had been reversed. African American supporters of the NAACP have waited a lifetime for a presidential nominee who looks like them - and so have women.

Many last century membership organizations are in a panic as they watch their donor bases age and flail around trying to attract young people with newer causes to support. NARAL may be feeling this heat as well. I would be happy to tell you about far more graceful ways to enter the Connected Age than scorning your core constituency.

I am old enough to know that your fight is important but young enough not to have laid the cornerstone of organizations like yours - but I promise you that just as you're not there for me today, I won't be there for you tomorrow. My friends Hannah and Alisa and Barbara, their sisters, girlfriends, mothers, daughters and cousins have volunteered, donated money, made calls, marched, worn buttons, buttonholed their friends and family, fought valiantly against the relentless attacks of the far right, and are the constant stalwarts of every woman's right to choose, and they deserve so much more respect than this.


 
 

Comments
81
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

As a Republican Native American Woman I am disgraced by these women who claim everything about this campaign is sexist cause their candidate isn't going to win. For the record I would never vote for Clinton because she wasn't thinking of the sexism when she allowed her supporters to announce her as someone with Testicle fortitude...where were you to say they were wrong or was it because she was your candidate. So now you say instead of voting for someone who shares your belif in pro life you idiots would vote for Mc Lame who will take your rights as a woman and treat you like you have no say...all of you are a disgrace to the title of a woman.

Republican Native American Woman for Obama.....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 AM on 05/20/2008

If Hillary Clinton wanted NARAL's support, she should not have sent her proxies out to LIE about Barack Obama's 'present' votes in the Chicago legislature; votes which they knew--but did not say--had been cast in cunjunction with and at the bidding of NARAL.

So if you want to talk about "finger in the eye", start there. It's the height of delerious, operatic gall for any of her partisans to expect the time of day from NARAL after that.

No male politician is going to be as ready to support feminist causes if the political reward is a female politician lying and calling him a misogynist anyway. Hillary's campaign ethics have done immense harm to the feminist cause.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 AM on 05/20/2008

shut up, already...

Obama's supporters being accused of being cult worshippers by this lot? LOL!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:35 PM on 05/19/2008

Let me be very clear.

As a male, I viewed Hillary Clintons gender to be a very important *positive* factor. I saw it, initially, to be a signal about how far liberal values and the women's cause had gotten in the US, and I was excited by the prospect of having a woman in the White House.

However, I found that the candidate itself was lacking. Clinton ran a fiscally unsound, strategically lame, visionary stale, and quite surprisingly destructive campaign which, compared to Obama's, simply seemed unworthy. And now, Clinton has all but lost. NARAL saw that and instead of following Clinton on her Quixotic quest they broke off and said "enough". Yes, enough.

I believe feminism is poorly served by electing a poorer candidate just because she is a woman -- affirmative action is a good thing in many cases, but hardly for President of the United States.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:38 AM on 05/19/2008

If it's a betrayal to put the good of this nation and its people ahead of a personal relationship or emotional baggage, then we could use a lot more betrayals in our government.

Why would rational people demand organizations put the nation ahead of Hillary? Like calling somebody a Judas for choosing to support the candidate he deemed the best option rather than letting his loyalty to Hillary override his better judgment, you make yourselves look petty and selfish every time you rail against those making decisions for valid political reasons rather than support a woman whose goals weren't as good for the nation.

If the NAACP supported Obama "just because he's black, and that is such a huge appeal in the eyes of our voters who think of him as their vicarious victory over our society's injustices that we don't dare cast our support for the best candidate", would you think that was a worthy reason?

So many Hillary supporters out there basically admit to emotional investment in her campaign--and how you don't think of her potential for being a successful president, but rather of her potential for being a successful victory of your little feminist agenda. It sounds just as stupid to say that the greatest criterion for presidency is the obove reason regarding women and feminism.

And that's why the rest of us consider Hillary's supporters brainwashed. We think them delusional because they deny facts they don't like.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 AM on 05/18/2008

"But the depth of pride and ownership that women across demographics feel for Hillary are very real"

No doubt, but pride goeth before the fall, as the saying goes.

I could never in my life, ever be proud of anyone, male or female, who voted to let George Bush invade Iraq. When I think of the thousands of young Americans, god knows what the number is now, who died and who are maimed for the rest of their lives---when I think of the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Iraqi human beings killed---geez, what is the matter with people? That they would so adaantly support this slaughter and killing, that they would so adamantly also support a candidate who blithly declared she would annhilate Iran , with nukes, to protect Israel, when she voted to let Bush do it again in Iran if he chose---have Hillary supporters become a national movement of psychopathic, warmongering followers who cannot sit down and reflect upon what it means, in their name , to kill and murder and destroy another country on lies and that their candidate voted to let it happen and to make it worse, fully supported George Bush's war folly for two or more years after that until it was evident it was going awry.

What has happened to humanity that they can so casually put that slaughter out of their minds..., while teaching their daughters about the first woman president?

Hearts, souls gone missing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:16 AM on 05/17/2008

Wow. Feminists, many of them among those who saw the movement first flower in the sixties, have now been victimized by one of the nation's pre-eminent feminist organizations. NARAL has "attacked" them, "spat in the eye" of "their candidate." It's like bizarro world.

This seems, once again, to point up the likelihood that Hillary's supporters are utterly disconnected from issues and utterly disconnected from the Democratic party and its values and goals. They are ONLY connected to Hillary. When HIllary smiles, they smile. When Hillary is cross, they are cross. And when Hillary is victimized, they are victimaized.

It must be sad to be a member of a personality cult that constantly places you in a state of victimhood.

It will be interesting to see the consequences of the revenge which they appear to be plotting. Like all other supporters of Senator Clinton who are promising November mischief, it seems that they are willing to relinquish all of the rights and all of the issues that they have claimed to stand for and support for the sake of throwing some sort of pre-adolescent temper tantrum.

I hope that display of temper is satisfying enough to them that when they lose their reproductive rights, and lose access to contraception, and when the babies they are being forced to have are growing up and being drafted into the GOP's 100-year Pan-Islamic Crusade, that they can look back with a sense of true pride on their actions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:48 PM on 05/16/2008



I find it impossible to believe that **anyone** who cares about reproductive rights would seriously do **anything** to jeopardize it.

And it would be the **ultimate** selfishness for women who no longer have a personal concern with that issue to threaten the rest of us.

Anyone who would do that puts a lie to any claim of feminism. Or decent humanity.

.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:02 PM on 05/16/2008

As the mother of two sons and one daughter, I now see the error of my ways.

I regret the time I have spent ensuring my sons have a healthy, partnership view of women as their colleagues, friends, lovers and equal human beings. Pardon me, boys; I hadn't realized this was all-out-war and that you are the sworn enemy.

Do not support women's rights, my sons! Your engagement in the cause is not welcome. You made the horrible, fatal mistake of being born with penises--you are flawed and unworthy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 05/16/2008

The future of the pro-choice movement rests on ELECTING BARACK OBAMA and NOT John McCain. If any of these Hillary supporters cared about reproductive rights, they would stop trying to damagae Obama and get behind him. He has an excellent pro-choice record, in spite of what the flyers, which Hillary supporters passed out before the NH primary, said (they lied).
Hillary supporters should remember that it is hard to respect their rabid and destructive perspective.
I haven't given to NARAL in years (I haven't liked their pushy phone calls), but now I will!!! Perhaps NARAL will have more support than ever!!!
(I am curious about one thing: how do Hillary supporters continue to respect Hillary after her blatant lies about her Bosnia trip? CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN THIS? ALLISON FINE??)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 05/16/2008

"Really, the entire future of the pro-choice movement rests on spitting in the eye of the strongest woman candidate in the history of the country, rather than waiting three more weeks to put whatever organizational muscle it has left after today to work for Obama, that this sliver of times will make the difference between winning and losing in November? It is unimaginable that the NAACP would have pulled the rug out from under it's own constituency like this if the roles had been reversed. African American supporters of the NAACP have waited a lifetime for a presidential nominee who looks like them - and so have women."

There is SO MUCH wrong with this statement, where to begin?

This endorsement is NOT about women vs. men, nor is it about white vs. black. It is about which candidate NARAL felt was going to be the democratic nominee. It is clear to anyone who is not deluded that Obama will be that person. And as he is also an unequivocal supporter of women's reproductive rights, NARAL was "spitting in the eye" of no one.

NARAL =/= the NAACP. However, if both candidates had almost identical records with respect to the issues that the NAACP hlds dear, and it was clear that Clinton would be nominee, there would be no issue in them supporting her at any time after this became clear.

Your statement is anti-feminist in the extreme.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:23 PM on 05/15/2008

Here's why NARAL endorsed - to stay relevant and to introduce itself to a new generation. You say it yourself:

"Many last century membership organizations are in a panic as they watch their donor bases age and flail around trying to attract young people with newer causes to support. NARAL may be feeling this heat as well. I would be happy to tell you about far more graceful ways to enter the Connected Age than scorning your core constituency."

And if their core constituency were a little more limber in the core and willing to be flexible, they could see this. If they don't, they won't be around much longer. They'll be replaced or made extinct.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 PM on 05/15/2008

This is so tired. You could just as easily turn the author's argument around to:
"Really, the entire future of the pro-choice movement rests on squabbling about vote counts in Florida and changing rules and moving goal posts until the entire party is in disarray. Let Hillary continue to mount her losing campaign right up to the convention and then host a harmonizing floor fight for the nomination.

Please. Feminism doesn't mean only voting for a female. Sometimes it means building a coalition that includes EVERYONE.

Even the headline of this article is designed to promote hard feelings.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:31 PM on 05/15/2008

Author said: "My friends Hannah and Alisa and Barbara, their sisters, girlfriends, mothers, daughters and cousins have volunteered, donated money, made calls, marched, worn buttons, buttonholed their friends and family, fought valiantly against the relentless attacks of the far right, and are the constant stalwarts of every woman's right to choose, and they deserve so much more respect than this."

Your argument is fundamentally flawed but you are absolutely correct. AMERICA deserve a president who will wear the mantle of leadership with grace, wisdom. judgement, and dignity.

As a Black woman, if Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson were running for president (as they have), should I support them simply because they are Black? (I didn't).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 05/15/2008


"As a Black woman, if Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson were running for president (as they have), should I support them simply because they are Black? (I didn't)."

BUT, even more to the point, what if it were a pro-choice woman with whom you didn't agree? Is the feminist party line to stand with my sisters right or wrong??

Condi Rice is pro-choice. If it were Condi vs Obama, let's have a show of posts, where would you stand?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:02 PM on 05/15/2008

Honestly. A fact that's gotten lost in this current narrative is that right-wing and conservative black politicians rarely get widespread support from the AA voting base. Black people historically vote their interests, not their color.

It just so happens that Obama is a man of color who black people feel will best represent their interests for the next 8 years.

And there are loads of white people, women, young people, old people, rich people, and poor people who feel exactly the same way.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 PM on 05/15/2008


... but the question isn't about AA support. The question is about feminist support of women above all else.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 AM on 05/16/2008

I am astounded by how many comments miss the fundamental point of my piece. I announced my support of Hillary for transparency purposes. The point of the post is that there is no reason that NARAL needs to make an endorsement at this particular moment and by doing so they are intentionally insulting women like my friends Barbara and Hannah and many others who are both NARAL and Hillary supporters. NARAL's support now, as opposed to three weeks from now, makes no difference in these primary elections -- so why go did NARAL go out of their way to add insult to injury to a large number of women who have worked their hearts out for years supporting both NARAL and Hillary.

In addition, many of the comments here make me sad to be a Democrat and a feminist - since when did personal attacks become the weapon of choice for the left. I'll leave that to Rush and his crowd.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 05/15/2008

These are not insults, AH. The posters are simply disagreeing with your premise. Why are your friends so insulted? I can understand that they are disappointed, but insulted? Should we Obama supporters be insulted because Ed Rendell, Evan Bayh, and Ted Strickland supported Hillary. This primary has been about the war--not male versus female. Hillary voted incorrectly. Not all people who are members of NARAL are Hillary supporters. Not all members of the unions who endorse candidates support the candidate that the union endorses. Everybody sees the handwriting on the wall. It's time to get behind the nominee. I am sorry that you are so disappointed, and I know exactly how you and Barbara and Hannah feel because this is the very first time that my primary choice has won the nomination. To put so much time and energy into a campaign and not win is absolutely devastating.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 PM on 05/17/2008

Please read SayonaraSnots post upthread.

For all the division feminists have caused , virtually because they did not get what they want, i will never contribute to NOW or Emily's Choice. I agree that looking forward to a new generation of feminists is smart on the part of NARAL, especially since Obama seems to have won over the youth vote. No one to blame but themselves--they are aging as are many of the old core feminists. You can't force anyone, not a women, nor a man, nor institutions like NARAL, to blindly support a flawed candidate such as Bill and Hillary Clinton. You do not own them just because you support Hillary Clinton. That is a flaw in your thinking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 AM on 05/17/2008

The point of the post is that there is no reason that NARAL needs to make an endorsement at this particular moment and by doing so they are intentionally insulting women like my friends Barbara and Hannah and many others who are both NARAL and Hillary supporters. NARAL's support now, as opposed to three weeks from now, makes no difference in these primary elections -- so why go did NARAL go out of their way to add insult to injury to a large number of women who have worked their hearts out for years supporting both NARAL and Hillary.

BECAUSE IT NEITHER ABOUT THE COLLECTIVE "YOU" OR HILLARY........Or have you forgotten there is a presidential election looming a mere six months away? And Senator Obama has spent the last three months squabbling with and defending himself against YOUR hillary.

This reader misunderstood nothing. You and other Hillary supporters are absolutely pissed that NARAL supports Senator Obama. Whether now or three weeks from now. He is a man (gasp) and they should support the woman. Period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:26 PM on 05/16/2008

I don't understand why you don't understand the reaction your article has caused.

You are making it about you.. IT IS NOT ABOUT you and your selfish friends!

It is ABOUT the future of Women's RIGHT TO CHOOSE, their reproductive rights. I am a black woman past childbearing years. I would NOT vote for Obama JUST because he is black...NOR.. would I vote for Hillary JUST because she is a woman..

We have to be SMARTER THAN THAT!! WHERE HAS BLIND ALLEGIANCE GOT US??!!

I have no dog in this fight for myself, as I said, I am past all this personally....BUT.. realize that for future generations WE MUST SUPPORT NARAL...Our allegiance is to WOMEN.. NOT any one person!
Obama will support NARAL just as HRC would, ( probably, maybe?!).. I personally don't care who does it as long as it is done.

As much as she flip flops, god's only know what she would have said about abortions rights, depending on what group she was in front of..
I DO NOT say this in jest.. I really mean it!!

We must end this primary... SHE WILL NOT WIN, and get on to the general election.. WE MUST WIN THIS ELECTION.. TOO MANY IMPORTANT THINGS ARE AT STAKE.
I care about our party MORE than any one person.
She was not betrayed.. Sadly She forced this action by NARAL.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 AM on 05/16/2008

they didnt want to wait 3 weeks because we need to end this now and focus on the GE.

Hillary cannot win, she cannot pull off a last min victory to get the nod. THe only thing she is doing is polarizing voters away from Obama. She is getting their hopes up and when she finally does loose her base might not come back to the fold because of her actions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 AM on 05/16/2008

If anyone you know is "insulted" by any organization endorsing a candidate that is not the one they support, they need to take a step back. In fact, they should take a short break from politics to get a sense of perspective.

Senator Clinton is a female politician currently running for president. She is not a stand-in for the hopes and dreams of women across the country. She is not a vessel for any women to live vicariously through. As a feminist I find the idea of any woman being put in such a position to be repulsive.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 PM on 05/15/2008

Nobody's missing the point. We're an intelligent bunch here (the trolls notwithstanding). You should take a second look at what you've written, and rewrite it if you're being misunderstood. Because the fault is not with us.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 PM on 05/15/2008

"NARAL's support now, as opposed to three weeks from now, makes no difference in these primary elections -- so why go did NARAL go out of their way to add insult to injury to a large number of women who have worked their hearts out for years supporting both NARAL and Hillary."

This confuses me. Are you saying that if NARAL had made this endorsement three weeks ago, you and your friends would have been fine with it, and wouldn't have been threatening never again to support NARAL?

Or are you saying that the endorsement now doesn't matter because the primary is over? I'm inclined to agree with you, but what's stopping me is the fact that Senator Clinton hasn't withdrawn. As long as she's still making the case that she should be the nominee, endorsements do matter.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:09 PM on 05/15/2008

You don't seem to understand the disconnect between waves of feminism. Many feminists who don't fit into the mold of second wave feminism have understandable reasons to be skeptical of Hillary. There is a feeling among many lower income and third world women that Hillary has been focusing on issues primarily of concern to older, upper and middle class white women while ignoring their needs, fighting to break the glass ceiling for a few instead of helping the mass of women rise above the dirt floor of substandard living conditions. As examples they would cite her service at Wal-Mart getting a token few women into management while looking the other way when union busting tactics were enacted, her support for NAFTA despite her public protestations to the contrary, welfare reform under Bill's administration that cast all too many women and children under the bus with no health care or assistance.
And to assume that Hillary is the best and only woman candidate detracts from the greatness of so many women leaders with much more real experience, executive experience, who have done so much more for all women of whatever race, color, or class. Prime example: Kathleen Sebelius.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 PM on 05/15/2008

Oh no, don't open that can of worms. Nothing upsets a middle-class white feminist like being reminded that their efforts center largely on the issues of other middle-class white feminists, and not the issues facing poor woman and women of color.

Oh and I'm totally with you on Sebelius.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 PM on 05/15/2008

I think the pain these women you write about are feeling comes from the realiztion that they are now the establishment, they are the status quo - in other words, the hindrance to change. And that doesn't feel good. They've thought themselves on the ramparts for literally decades while in actuality they have become exactly what they always fought against - the system. To survive, NARAL has to change, progress, grow; it has to learn about the new generation of young women and what they want. To make its endorsement matter, to introduce itself to this new generation, they had to endorse now. To wait as you suggest would have made their endorsement meaningless, coming as it would have in the flood of endorsements that will pour down on Obama. Nobody would have paid any attention to NARAL or its agenda then. Now was the right time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:19 PM on 05/15/2008

I find this attitude confusing. Am I sexist if I don't politically support Condoleezza Rice? Elizabeth Dole? Kay Bailey Hutchison? They are all intelligent, accomplished women. Are middle aged women expected to walk in lock step with each other? I voted for the candidate I felt would be the best president. I feel confident that some day that person will be a women, but this time I felt, and still feel, that person is Barack Obama. Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are in complete agreement on the issue of choice; abandoning NARAL because of their endorsement seems irresponsible.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 PM on 05/15/2008

Irresponsible, hypocritical, immature, cruel..I could go on.

Because when you stop supporting a non-profit, guess who suffers? The people the non-profit hopes to help.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 PM on 05/15/2008

Let me understand this... women feel disrespected because I didn't vote for Hillary? That's the most sexist thing I've ever heard, period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 AM on 05/15/2008

Emphasizing gender over merit/policy is the antithesis of what the women's movement is supposed to be about. The expectation that women should support a candidate simply because she is a woman, rather than making an educated and informed choice based on her own opinions is so absurd and hypocritical that it is hard to believe that someone could call herself a feminist with a straight face. I am not saying that feminists should not support Sen. Clinton - the point is to support whomever you choose - but the decision should be based on merit, not blind gender loyalty. Blind gender loyalty has held women back for generations - do we want to change the system or just reverse roles?
From NARAL's perspective, it needs to look to the candidate that is best positioned to help achieve its goals. There is little question that a McCain presidency and the judicial appointments that may arise could dramatically diminish, if not eliminate, abortion rights. It is time to put the petty bickering aside and look to the general election. Even the most loyal supporters from both sides need to take a long hard look at what is important to them - the policies that the Democratic party represents in contrast to the Republicans, or the cult of personality that each Democratic candidate has developed?
Support NARAL because you believe in what it is fighting for, not because it agrees or disagrees with your sense of gender loyalty and entitlement.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:45 AM on 05/15/2008

Very well put.

This is exactly what I find unsettling about groups like Emily's List: the notion that gender is more important than or even on the same level as merit or policy.

Doesn't our nation deserve the best candidate of whatever gender or race?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:43 PM on 05/15/2008
- Siryn