Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Hell's Belles! NARAL Enrages The Clinton-Or-Die Contingent
NARAL, just because you're officially Pro-Choice America doesn't mean you have one. A choice, that is. Just because you've served as a powerful voice for the reproductive rights of American women for forty years doesn't mean you deserve a little respect from your membership. Or that, just maybe, you know what you're doing. Sheesh.
What were you thinking?
Well...NARAL's political action committee chose to endorse pro-choice Barack Obama. Nancy Keenan made the pro-choice choice public and then came the blowback--well, let's call it Hurricane Hillary and have done with it. No matter that the announcement praises both Clinton and Obama. No matter that Ms Keenan makes clear how valuable both Clinton and Obama are to NARAL and to American women. No matter that Ms Keenan quotes Barack Obama on choice:
A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women.
No matter that Obama supports and defends Roe v. Wade.
It's not enough. The fact that both Democratic candidates are adamantly pro-choice is not enough. Raging Clinton-backers stormed NARAL's Blog for Choice site in droves. Bottom line? NARAL is a traitorous organization which betrayed Hillary Clinton--and all women, for God's sake, are Hillary Clinton. And Barack Obama is a MAN.
Hell hath no fury and all that. Hundreds and hundreds of women (and not a few men) blasted NARAL on-line. The Clinton-Or-Else bloc is canceling their membership in droves. To be fair, there were comments from rational women on both sides of the primary fence. But there were too many she-wolves, fangs bared, howling at the moon. A sampling of the feral fury:
"Senator Clinton, is a woman for pete's sake... [sic]"
"...an insulting slap in the face to [Hillary's] career and to all women..."
"...women support women!"
"You made your bed--now go sleep in it with B Hussein O."
"...are you a bunch of stupid ignorant women...a bunch of rich bitches..."
"You'll be remembered as part of the howling mob who tried to tear apart the woman who dared reach for the highest office in the land."
"Since when did Barack Obama get a uterus and ovaries? NARAL SUCKS! I will vote for McCain if Obama is nominated, we might as well get used to being barefoot and pregnant right away..."
"You guys suck. Obama sucks. I'm so pissed off."
"An local astrologer [sic] did a current-trend chart on Obama & it was very similar to HITLER'S chart. This is scary!"
"The liar is not even black! He's half black! Hillary is not half woman!"
Obama, according to this Clinton faction, can't prove he's really pro-choice. In New Hampshire the Clinton camp proved he's soft on women's reproductive rights--because they said so. And she's a woman. So what if he is pro-choice? Hillary's been pro-choice longer. And she's a woman. NARAL should have waited it out until HRC says it's over. And she's a woman. How could they--especially after the Clinton landslide in West Virginia changes everything? And she's a woman. Good Lord! As West Virginia goes, so goes the nation! And 70 percent of women in WVA voted Hillary! Because she's a woman. And they know a real woman when they see one.
There are nut cases involved in every campaign, supporting every candidate. Certainly, there are flakes among Obama supporters. But let's be honest: Barack Obama does not fuel that fire. He doesn't write an "I'm a victim because..." script for them. He is who he is--and neither the man nor his message has changed since that first February day of his candidacy in Springfield. He hasn't had his surrogates whine that "those other guys are ganging up on me" following debates. He hasn't claimed his spouse's experience as (miraculously) entirely his own. He hasn't wept for the camera when "It's hard...". He hasn't embellished his history with tales of gunfire. He hasn't belted down Canadian whiskey with a beer chaser or hugged his gun and waxed sentimental about his huntin' days. He hasn't said something like, say, she's unelectable because reports show "Her support is weakening among working--hardworking Americans--black Americans..."
NARAL endorsed a candidate based on his character, his record and, I suspect, to signal us--we women who have been conflicted about this primary--that Obama is most likely to win this nomination and it's okay. He's one of us. Being a staunch advocate for women's reproductive rights is a matter of character and of spirit. No uterus required.
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
Unfortunately Hillary continues to feed the flame of her supporters anger, even after it is clear to any rational person that the fight is O-V-E-R ....
...which supports my conviction that she's trying to make B.O. unelectable.
Hillary will, in the end, 'make nice' and proclaim her support but the dog-whistle messages, intended to enable a McCain victory, will continue from her surrogates.
B.O., having funded a campaign largely through the small donations of average Americans is anathema to Hillary's REAL BASE -- ie. the big contributors, AIPAC, and DLC corporatists who have ruled the roost in the democratic party and are loath to lose their power to the 'little people.'
I am applalled that Clinton supporters (not all, just the insensible ones) ae treating Obama as though he is the enemy. "Obama is half black, but Hilary is all woman." What the hell is that about! Truth is, had NARAL endorsed Hill on Wed, they would have no problem at all. You can tell these women are not thinking. Cancelling your NARAL membership? Threatening to vote for McCain? And by the time he is done appointing his ultra conservatives to the Supreme Court, they will overturn Roe v Wade faster than you can say it. I sympathize with Clinton supporters because they had their heart set on their candidate getting the nomination and winning. But this has gotten ridiculous. Obama has been a staunch supporter of reproductive rights and will continue to do so when he is president. McCain, oh I do not want to think about it.
It's refreshing to see rational review of the decision instead of knee-jerk reaction born not of political prowess, history, and intentions, but of a decision to hinge the easing of a private ache--the lesser treatment of women--upon the success of one person, however fitting a representative.
If women want to attain "liberation" by embodying that in a person who whines when not even being mistreated, who cattily suggests others are at fault for all ills befalling her, who is mercurial and inconsistent, and who appeals to emotions rather than to reason, they might as well just come out and say that all the sexists are right in portraying them as weak, shrewish, inconstant, emotional, irresponsible, irrational, and liable to blame others for their own faults.
Her most senselessly ardent supporters, and her own actions, seem to have rendered Hillary's campaigns one of the biggest setbacks to efforts to prove women deserve treatment equal to men's because she keeps demanding to be given special treatment and they insist sexism lies behind her every failing rather than admit her shortcomings and their own overreaction in becoming so wrapped up in her prospects that they can't accept anything short of her victory.
As if women don't have enough MEN telling them what to think and do because the women supposedly aren't bright enough to do so for themselves, now a bunch of women are doing the exact same thing, sabotaging their own cause..
As a woman, I don't like being on the receiving end of any uterine based marching orders. The folly in the Clinton outrage is that a NARAL endorsement should not direct thinking voters' decisions about the race. Isn't that the point of equality?
If NARAL told me to jump off a cliff I wouldn't do it...however, a Clinton supporter just might push me if I wasn't careful...
Let's talk about great leaders that were women for a moment. Margaret Thatcher, Eleanor Roosevelt, Indira Gandi and Golda Mier come to mind.
Can you picture any of these ladies tossing back shots after guzzling beer, crying in public to elicit sympathy (votes) or preying on unsuspecting WV vulnerabilities?
Poverty in the USA existed during the Clinton years. Where was Hillary? Eleanor Roosevelt dedicated her time in the white house to the causes of the least of us in the United States. Why couldn't Hillary?
I was a Hillary fan at the beginning of the campaign but she just doesn't have the Presidential tenor.
Hillary would regain some support that has drifted away during the campaign, if she behaved like a leader who wants to see us step forward into the future together.
THIS IS THE MOMENT for her "gender" speech. She should acknowledge that we cannot jettison supporters who have fought side by side just because they are younger or are male.
Hillary can help bridge this gap if she is more interested in achieving our common interests instead of her own ambition.
What female leader is ready to take up this cause? Who will lead? Please listen Hillary--this is a test!
Don't forget Hillary's testicle fortitude
Linda, I don't think you will convince the determined angry . However, I appreciate how well you articulated your point. It helps me process the bewilderment/shock/outrage this response from Naral affiliates generates in me. Thank you; it needed to be said.
It will be interesting to see who (or if) steps forward to help truly lead. The stakes are so high, we just can't be selfish and small minded. I am longing for the woman/women who will bring ALL of us together. As I see it, unifying should be one of the signature gifts of female leadership. It is exactly what is needed in the world and it is why we women are succeeding and will ascend.
Anyone (or any organization) pulling us apart for short term or selfish gains will not have my respect or support. We need to come together now more than ever, ever before. A leader will try. A great leader will succeed.
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.
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 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.
This is the time for a woman on the ticket. It is understandable why so many women have invested so much emotionally into Hillary's candidacy. She failed them by not running an effective campaign and stooping to such un-feminist tactics. Nonetheless, we do owe it to them, to ourselves, to reach out to their hopes and aspirations too.
Obama/.Sebelius 2008 &2012, Sebelius 2016!
I'm a little confused, what exactly does HRC's success or failure have do do with anybody else? We are picking a president, and people and organizations should be able to say whatever they want. Having a different opinion doesn't make somebody a bad person.
It's time for all of us to conduct ourselves as grown up adult people. C'mon everybody, let's give that a try.
Here's the problem. In order to protect a woman's right to choose, Republicans have to be kept out of the White House. In order to keep Republicans out of the White House, you have to have a Democratic candidate who can win.
I suspect that Obama's electability problem is one of the reasons why NARAL organizations in states around the country came out today and assured their supporters that they had no control over the Washington head quarter's decision and that they had in fact not endorsed Obama. A tiny group of Obama fans at the NARAL Washington DC office made this decision on their own.
i suspect another reason for NARAL affiliates around the country coming out against NARAL HQ's decision is the rampant sexism in this campaign season, misogyny in which Obama has been one of the leading participants.
I am very curious how you impute misogyny to Hillary's rival candidate. There has been racism and sexism surfacing because the are issues we should all be working to resolve. But I wonder if it helps to accuse individuals unfairly, simply because you support someone else?
Please enlighten me about what egregious sexism Obama has engaged in. I've only heard this claim in the last 2 days and haven't heard an example of any weight--anything sexist at all. Here's one example I did read somewhere today--and hopefully it's transparently ridiclous:
When he said during one debate "You're likeable enough Hillary."
Sorry, but sexist? Where does sex come into it? No, a bit condescending, but very, very tame for a debate.
So what else has gone on?
How about when he recently called a reporter "sweetie" in MI? Or when he was calling women "sweeties" and offering kisses for votes or wearing his buttons in PA?
Or is that somehow not demeaning or sexist?
and they call themselves 'Humans' LOL. Go Obama 08!
wow.. what a load of BS..... Hillary was my candidate right up until she betrayed me and voted for the war... the war that killed my daughter.... she decided she needed to look tough.. be a war hawk and she tossed her principles out the window.. so much for REALLY being tough... NOW she is tough.... now that its all for HER...... but when it was for US... nooooooo.... not then..... I call that selfish and unprincipaled... then she says something about obliterating Iran... ok... you know what? ... she is a war monger for ALL the wrong reasons.. sheer naked power? nice.... lets have a woman in the white house just for the sake of having a woman there? I say no..... but lets have a good woman there.. to that I say yes... I look forward to that day..... you are all very lucky that woman is NOT hillary..... there will be one... and she will be great... but hillary would not.. could not be great.... Im not saying the alternatives will be great.. only time will tell... but one of them stands by his principals.... one stood against the war... one of them stands for change and hope...... these are things we ALL need... maybe some dont KNOW it.... so if you vote in mcCain just so you can remain just as you are... just to cut off your nose to spite your face.. then so be it....
Your heinous elipses abuse aside - yes. If she were as "tough" about her stance on Iraq, if she'd had the "cojones" to stand up for what was right and "never give up" when it was the lives of Americans on the line, I might give a crap about her "fighter spirit" now. But I don't.
A real fighter would've taken on Bush in 2004, but she took the coward's way out and waited until she thought it would be easy.
I'm really sorry about your daughter. We shouldn't ever lose sight of sacrifices like that.
It's true that Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love, but the vitriol and overt and covert racism of many of Clinton's supporters is nothing less than rabid. I can't decide if all those women [and some men] are actually Republicans using the endorsement to air their baseless attacks on NARAL's blogsite, or if the majority or a great number of [primarily white] Democratic women supporters of Clinton honestly believe that Obama is: Muslim, like Hitler, a fake black man who lies about it (as if his white family isn't prominent in everything he says and his ads), and anti-choice, for pity's sake.
Here in Northern California, the Clinton supporters and delegates have been very reasonable and have promised their support for Obama in November. Where are these maniacal Clinton supporters - if they truly are - coming from? It's astounding.
All the nutjobs flock together at a few choice blogs - there are a very few of them, but they're a loud minority.
I think Obama can afford to lose the "raging nutbag vote" this November.
Someone wrote "...an insulting slap in the face to [Hillary's] career and to all women..."
What?!! Do Hilary and her supporters think the rest of us (including us white older women) don't have a BRAIN and a RIGHT to choose for ourselves?
Some of us women actually have a brain and can chose for ourselves who is the right PERSON for the job, man or woman. Some day we may have a woman for President, but let's hope it's someone with good charactor, judgement, morals and values and willing for fight for ALL not just women.
*signed* an older white woman
Amen. Thank you--for every single word. 100% on target.
Speaking Truth - a beautiful thing. Thank you for helping these people be shown for their actions.
It should be noted that there have been large numbers of new NARAL members added to the rolls since the announcement of this endorsement. Congratulations to NARAL and those who truly support reproductive rights!
-chris blask
"Hill hath no fury like a woman like a woman scorned"
I guess these supporters forgot she said in January:
""And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans."
Loading comments…
Posted May 15, 2008 | 01:31 PM (EST)