Letters to the Editor
-
It's actually kind of sad
Seeing what happens when identity politics goes bad.
-
youch
HuffPo has a link to the NARAL webpage where they announce their endorsement.
You should see the responses posted...there are some mighty angry people there. And I thought some of our favorite folks here was mad...man, they got nuthin' on those people posting on NARAL.
I'm beginning to think that Bush & Co has made everyone so mad these last 8 years that we're having trouble seeing the forest for the trees.
-
Shultz can go pound sand
She's the brilliant Democratic member of Congress from Florida who refused to assist Democratic contenders challenging her pro-Cuba embargo Republican House of Representative pals Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and Mario Diaz-Balart. This despite the fact that she's the co-chair of the DCCC's Red-to-Blue program.
Effective Democratic politicians are all about winning elections and changing policy. With Obama having the election in hand, the winning play is to endorse him and solidify the base behind him and against McCain. NARAL understands this, that's why they endorsed him.
Shultz seems to be more concerned about making friends and who likes who. That's all well and good for her, but not so good for the women who will be negatively impacted if the GOP wins the presidency and we get another Alito or two on the Supreme Court.
-
apparently
an emotional connection to a candidate is more important than party unity and the Democratic platform. I can't believe some of these comments. Shameful.
-
This is after
Clinton distorted Obama's choice record in mailers (and angered many pro-choice activists in doing so, because they rightfully feel that it's an issue deserving of clarity and forthrightness). I remember several NARAL higher-ups being angry about that then. I believe Clinton's record on choice has been excellent, but so has Obama's. This is about something other than the facts.
-
Pointless anger ...
The race is over, OK? Obama is going to win the nomination.
NARAL's message - that it's time for pro-choice voters to come together behind the nominee and start healing the rift in the party - is a good one. It doesn't hurt Clinton one iota because she can't win the nomination.
Calling this action a betrayal makes no sense when you consider that Obama has been consistently pro-choice his entire career. The notion that it's a betrayal for a pro-choice organization to support a pro-choice candidate just because that candidate happens to be male ... well, that should deeply offend everybody who cares about equality.
Clinton has a long history of defending abortion rights, for which she should be commended. But Obama has an equally-strong history in that area, which is only shorter because he's younger.
-
Insulting
It's insulting to those of us who, as male Democrats, have consistently supported women's causes to suggest that endorsing a candidate is a 'betrayal' because he doesn't happen to be a woman. This sort of position is simply unacceptable.
-
She should have been thinking ahead
Hillary Clinton should have known she had this coming, i.e., the NARAL Obama endorsement, given her Dec. 2007 faux denouncement of Obama's strategy to work with the Illinois Planned Parenthood organization.
She decided to attack him for casting votes as "present," rather than in the affirmative, when confronted with legislation Planned PArenthood, Obama and other pro-choice legislators found inimical to the support of the pro-choice goals.
Indeed, Ms. Clinton thought it appropriate to hold Mr. Obama to a standard higher than which she held herself. Clever, but no good.
I have no sympathy for bullies like Clinton who fight by throwing dirt into the eyes of their opponents, while simultaneously calling foul.
She is getting what she deserves.
-
@ odanuki
I am wondering if I have a little reading problem. Since I do have ADD, I often miss things, but I didn't see a darn thing about these Clinton supporters being angry at NARAL for their edorsement having anything to do with Obama being a man. Could you please quote that relevant sentence?
-
AKA Smith
You have a fair point. However, to call NARAL's endorsement of Obama a betrayal is at best presumptuous.
-
ADD
Instead of attempting to be cute, perhaps it would be constructive to explain what the basis for the charge of "betrayal" would be, if not gender based. As is abundantly clear, Obama isn't exactly a right to lifer.
-
And this is the kicker for me
why does the Clinton campaign think that everybody owes her something?
-
Can someone explain the word "betrayal" to me?
I'm confused about how a pro-choice organization endorsing a pro-choice candidate over another pro-choice candidate constitutes "betrayal", unless NARAL had made some backroom promise to Clinton to endorse her. (Shades of Carville's "Judas" remark.) Can someone explain this to a clueless pro-choice feminist who happens to be a guy?
-
AKA, you're a reasonable person...
Hillary's camp called it a betrayal.
How so?
I guess because she works with and for them for so long? If that's the case, then ANYONE who she's worked with who has endorsed Obama has betrayed her.
I think the previous poster was suggestion the possibility that perhaps it was that PLUS how could a women's rights organization not support the female candidate?
I'm not saying that's what they meant. I don't know if it was or not. I'm simply suggesting that that was how the previous poster (and a few others) read it.
Maybe it would be like the NAACP endorsing Hillary. ??? Unexpected, maybe a little shocking. Perfectly acceptable.
-
Naral - good grief.
well, I'm sure a pro-abortion endorsement will do wonders for Obama with all those Catholics and elderly voters and hispanics he's already doing so well with!!
Liberals are like ostriches.
-
the haircut won't help might hurt.
and Naral, seriously? are you serious??? like what's it supposed to do, win over the Catholics he's losing??
-
CODE WORD ALERT!
GO TO DEFCON 3!
-
Good for those congresswomen!
Naral's endorsement does not impress me in the least. Obama is not a winner for the Democrats. The people have been saying this since February. Why won't Democrats listen? Not that I care particularly what Naral does. It just isn't that significant nor will it assuage voters. The same goes for the endorsement by John Edwards. It reflects badly on his judgment!
-
Catholics?
Well I'm Catholic, practicing even.
and know what else? I'm pro-choice and pro-gay rights.
(and hey Shawn...know what? I'm not alone. There are MILLIONS just like me. We're called "a la carte Catholics", look it up)