NARAL Sticks a Finger in Our Eye

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

[Turtleluv6]

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.....

[S1m0n]

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.

[LABC]

shut up, already...

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

[JohnHa]

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.

[egal]

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.

[ebbtide]

"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.

[BassMent]

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.

[YY2H8]

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.

.

[LeeinJax]

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.

[maryy1947]

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??)

[SayonaraSnot]

"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.

[gomonkeygo]

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.

[ruscle]

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.

[blaqntelligence]

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).

[AHFine]

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.

[gigi09]

I am a woman... and I am African American! I will not support Hillary, because she is an embarrassment to the human race. She has succeeded to take us back a few years with her race-baiting. You know that African Americans (myself included) have loved the Clintons. At the start of this campaign...I was excited that she was running! BUT, Hillary has turned into a selfish, self-righteous, self absorbed, lying, conniving person and I would not support regardless to what color she may be. It's a very thin line between love and hate,and AA's are feeling is betrayed. I do not buy into the guilt by association (Carl Rove strategy), if WE DID the Clintons would be down the river(jail) by now. I have seen was this female person have dissed the AA's... for her hard working white folks...and for you to associate AA with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the NAACP sounds like a race war to me. Obama has been decent with her...out of her own desperation she have managed to destroy her politcal career. What I suggest is that you, Hannah, Alisa, Barbara, their mothers, sisters, girlfriends, daughters and aunts search your hearts and ask yourselves...have I bought into HRC race-baiting technique OR was I already a racist?...do I uphold someone that is not trusted by at least 65% of americans?...or do you vote for the best person for the job...who happens to be African American!

[gomonkeygo]

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.

[SteveClements]

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.

[Gattamelata]

"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.

[SayonaraSnot]

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.

[pkrbkr]

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.

[SayonaraSnot]

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.

[bentenrai]

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.