I really don't understand the NARAL endorsement....

[ShaneGR]

I understand that Obama has won the nomination. I also understand why Clinton hasn't left the race. Mostly money, but if you take a cold stare at the situation, it actually helps Obama for her to stay in the race. If Clinton had dropped out of the race last week, and Obama had gone on to lose by at least 25 points in both West Virginia and Kentucky with no competition, that would have looked VERY bad. Regardless, just a couple weeks left, Obama gets his win in Oregon, Clinton gets her win in Kentucky.

So why the NARAL endorsement? They have to know that a huge percentage of their membership has donated to the Clintons for decades now. You can say whatever you want, but you absolutely cannot say that Hillary Clinton hasn't supported the pro-choice movement her entire career. Non Profits like NARAL are supposed to endorse politicians who have the deepest record of support for their issue.

It's just a dumb move a couple weeks before it's over anyways.

[mcctatas]

1. Maybe because they realize how important this next election

is for women's reproductive rights and want to send a signal to their membership who may be among those threatening to vote for McCain? (just a guess)

[YDogg]

7. that's my best guess

[quantass]

39. That is the BEST explanation i've heard

[Liberal Veteran]

2. Perhaps it's just a sign that we all freakin tired of this primary.

Your points are valid, but it may just have been a pre-emptive strike on their part to help end this campaign feeling to shut down the noise machine that wants this to be a convention fight.

[Boz]

3. She has changed her position, she has stated life begins at conception

That has always been a gateway phrase, and it is now Hillary's stance.

Thats how she lost them.

[ShaneGR]

6. Link to that?

I'm not saying she didn't say that, just hadn't heard that before.

[mcctatas]

11. full quote

"I believe the potential for life begins at conception. For me it is also not only about a potential life, it is about the other lives involved. I have concluded after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society." http://ktracy.com/?p=1185

dog-whistle words used to appeal to the right, but the rest of her statement doesn't seem to reenforce it. I don't think they are very different on this issue at all, there had to be a different reason for NARAL to do what they did...

[charlie]

16. Both of them answering the question

Does life begin at conception? 2 1/2 minute video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0YxdV3J4Jw

[Boz]

18. The following line was the rest of the context

I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.

I have supported adoption, foster care.

She has also said she wants to codify Roe V Wade to the states and remove it from federal jurisdiction.

Without it being federal it will by its very nature break down rights in some geographical diversity.

[mcctatas]

22. Yikes...

I missed that part. I hope it was merely more pandering in the same vein as gun-toting, shot drinking (OK, sipping Crown Royal), gas pumping and coffee fetching. If not, it further reinforces my choice in supporting Obama! Thanks for the context!!!

[loyalsister]

41. WOW

That was what the worst of the pre- Roe days were all about. Women unable to travel further than to the nearest back alley.

[Marrah_G]

25. Ummm the POTENTIAL for life DOES begin at conception......

That's just basic biology. She was stating a scientific fact.

Do you not understand what Potential means, or are you feigning ignorance out of hatred for her?

[thewiseguy]

27. It all depends on what you define as "life"..Human life or just life life?

[Marrah_G]

29. Any life, human or other.

con·cep·tion

Pronunciation:
\kən-ˈsep-shən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English concepcioun, from Anglo-French concepcion, from Latin conception-, conceptio, from concipere
Date:
14th century

1 a (1): the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both

_________________________________________

Conception bring the potential for life. You cannot have life without it. However, it does not always result in a life.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jonestonesusa]

36. How in the world can you accuse someone of hate

when they are discussing a quotation?

Over the top we go - can we just talk instead?

[Cha]

4. Maybe they just feel they're doing what their

conscience tells them to do.

Maybe they don't like LIARS of the hilary clinton brand.

[ShaneGR]

8. When has Hillary Clinton lied about the pro-choice movement?

Give me a speech or a voting record of some sort.

[Cha]

15. hilary lies period..end of story.

Like I said maybe they don't like Liars of the hilary clinton brand. She should have thought of how this would look when she thought nothing about lying her head off.

I applaud Naral for Endorsing Obama..it shows how much heart and intelligence they have.

"Why Hillary’s Lies are Important"

By - March 24, 2008, 9:53PM
Hillary Clinton has been caught in a series of lies and misrepresentations during the primary campaign. To some of her supporters, these lies may seem trivial and insignificant and even politics-as-usual. However, please consider the serious impact of these lies by placing them in the context of the past seven years of the Bush Administration and the legacy of expanded executive power that he leaves behind. In particular, consider the dangerous message that the Clinton campaign sends by employing similar tactics to achieve her political goals.

1. The Florida and Michigan Primaries / The Delegate Count
Hillary agreed to honor the DNC’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates after their primaries were moved up into January in express violation of the DNC rules. She did not change her position on the validity of these primaries until she found herself unexpectedly behind in the delegate count and desperately needed to claim the delegates that she had won in these unsanctioned contests. As her chances of winning the nomination became increasingly slim in recent weeks, we have been presented with threatening and desperate lines of reasoning for why these primary results should count as is. At the same time, Clinton and her surrogates continue to propose different metrics for determining who should win the nomination even though there is and has been a clearly defined process in place for several decades.

Please think about the implications of changing election rules after the fact. We have suffered through at least one stolen presidential election and the manipulation of untold numbers of Congressional and state elections through various vote tampering and voter intimidation schemes used by the Republicans and their allies. The American people (and especially Democratic voters) have lost faith in the integrity of the election process. The Clinton strategy to continually change the rules for determining the Democratic Party nominee sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to increasingly un-Democratic elections in the future if it is allowed to succeed. If anything, we need more transparency and methods of accountability in our elections in order to repair the damage done in recent years and to restore our confidence in the Government.

2. The Bosnia Fabrication / Exaggerated Experience Claims
Hillary fabricated a story about a dangerous, life-risking visit to Bosnia in order to gain stature as an experienced negotiator in international conflicts and war. While this type of embellishment can seem almost comical, it represents a willingness to distort reality in order to influence the public perception. This is the same type of distortion that the Bush administration used to justify the war in Iraq, although the magnitude of the lie is certainly on a different scale. The Bush administration falsified reports, cherry-picked intelligence, used unreliable sources, and employed fear-mongering tactics to convince the American public that our safety was at risk and as such, you were either with us or with the terrorists. The lies used by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeachable offenses and should be condemned by all Americans. Sadly, the Clinton campaign seems to have shown a shocking willingness to employ the same tactics to create a more favorable reality and to rely on divide-and-conquer rhetoric to weaken opposition. Her attempts to frighten the American people by conjuring up 3 AM phone calls are bad enough, but her vote of confidence in John McCain over Barack Obama should be seen as treason against the Democratic Party.

3. NAFTA
Hillary lied about her position on NAFTA and used her lies in a calculated way to influence the Ohio primary. Recently released White House documents confirm that Hillary had been an active proponent of NAFTA prior to its passage, and she has continued to support it publicly in her speeches and memoir. However, while campaigning in Ohio, she claimed to have been privately against NAFTA during the Clinton presidency and believes that it should be rewritten to protect American jobs and workers. This type of maneuvering is reminiscent of the behind-closed-doors policy-making that the Bush administration has used during the past seven years. Specifically, Bush and Cheney have made policy decisions without providing transparency to Congress or the public, and President Bush has repeatedly ignored the rule of law by issuing signing statements and disregarding the parts of the laws that he doesn’t agree with. If we cannot trust Hillary to be truthful about her positions on critical legislative issues now, how can we trust that she will be truthful as president?

These are just three examples that illustrate the concerns we should have with a candidate who demonstrates a sense of entitlement to the nomination and is willing to lie, misrepresent, threaten, and divide in order to obtain the nomination. President Bush and the neoconservative movement have greatly harmed this country by the creation of an imperial-like presidency. This election is not just about whether a Democrat or Republican wins but if the checks and balances are restored to the three branches of government. The framers of the Constitution were in such fear of an imperial president that mechanisms for impeachment are prominently and explicitly included in the Constitution. If Hillary Clinton is willing to use lies and deceit to win the Democratic nomination, what assurances do we have that she will not continue to use them once she is president?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/why-h ...

<snip>

"Her response to being caught lying to a military audience, when she invented a story about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, was to say it wasn't surprising she got some things wrong, seeing how she spoke millions of words every day. What a magnificent idea, that if you say lots of words some of them are bound to be fantastic lies. So if you listen carefully to horse-racing commentators they say things like "And it's Teddy's Boy still leading three furlongs out as they come up to the fourth last fence with Nip and Tuck two lengths behind by the way I fought a tiger once, punched it clean out and they're all safely over."

<lots more>
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/article3 ...

"It's not that lying to pad the resume, avoid Indictment or to advance her political fortune is anything new for Hillary Clinton. She famously said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary (debunked); she told New Yorkers she was a Yankee fan when she lived in Chicago (debunked); she told rural New Yorkers that she was a "duck hunter" (debunked); she claimed that her daughter Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center at the time of the 9/11 attack (debunked by Chelsea herself.) And, those subpoenaed Rose Law billing records just happened to show up one day on a hallway table in the most monitored home in America!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[rucky]

5. Some groups need political support more than politicians need their support.

so they back the winner.

[newmajority]

9. NARAL realizes that their issues are seriously in trouble if McLoon is elected.

And one would imagine that they're especially pissed that a woman, of all people, would seem to be putting women's rights at risk for her own vanity.

[jsmirman]

13. And it's more than seriously in trouble. It would be a fatal blow.

It's already really 5-4 against us (and them). If we lose two more and it becomes 7-2... The 5-4 is not set in stone, either. 7-2 would be the end. Roberts and Alito have been exactly what Bush expected.

[sandnsea]

10. They aren't vagina voters

they're voting their conscience and see Obama as the better candidate to fight the right wing on cultural issues because he doesn't come to it with the baggage Hillary does. How about that?

[woolldog]

12. They realize that the long primary is hurting the nominee

and if Obama doesn't win the GE, that will be the end of choice.

That's more important to them than continuing the petty squabbling. They want this thing to end so McCain doesn't win.

[TheDonkey]

14. Not really, that meme that her staying in is a help is a LIE

we would not have had special "campaign" coverage for WV's tuesday primary. She would have won by double digits and the news would be quickly ignored and JE would have still come out and endorsed today. The campaign would fully be on GE mode and we'd be marching towards victory.

Hillary's continued crawling is doing nothing but slow the inevitable uniting. I do not think she is going to "ruin" obama's chances but she is just wasting money of her supporters at this point and waging a campaign for the sake of vanity.

Good for NARAL!

[NashVegas]

17. They Need to Suck Up to the Guy Who Voted "Present" Nine Times

[wvbygod]

33. ouch! The crickets really come out when Obama is called on his absense

Silence can never excuse inaction.

[Radical Activist]

34. This has been explained ad nauseum.

Anyone who has taken time to inform themselves know that Obama has a 100% rating on choice issues.

[NashVegas]

43. Explained, But Not Accepted

By people who like their politicians to show a little spine when it matters.

[stillcool]

47. "Explained but not Accepted"

typical, isn't it?

Friday, January 25, 2008
'Present' votes defended by Ill. lawmakers
By Daniel C. Vock, Stateline.org Staff Writer

In most legislatures, lawmakers vote either “yes” or “no” on bills, but in Illinois, senators and representatives can hit a third button for a “present” vote. Now that quirk — not unique to Illinois — has sparked heated exchanges among Democrats vying for president.

The two main rivals of Illinois’ U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination accused him during a debate Monday (Jan. 21) of ducking important votes by voting “present” about 130 times during his eight years in the Illinois Senate.

But Obama’s former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama’s opponents don’t understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.

“To insinuate the ‘present’ vote means you’re indecisive, that you don’t have the courage to hold public office, that’s a stretch. But, it’s good politics,” said state Rep. Bill Black (R), a 22-year veteran of the House and his party’s floor leader.
----------------------------------------
The Land of Lincoln isn’t the only state where lawmakers can register their displeasure without actually voting against a bill. Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri and Texas also allow “present” votes or similar options in at least one chamber, according to a recent review of chamber rules by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
------------------------------------

In Illinois, the “present” vote works as a vote against a measure during final action.

State Sen. John Cullerton (D) calls the “present” vote “a no vote with an explanation.” Legally, there’s not much difference between the two votes, but practically, it can let the sponsors or other legislators know of problems with the bill that should be corrected.
-------------------------
Fritchey, the House Democrat who chairs a committee on civil law, said he often used the “present” vote when he thought a bill had constitutional or other legal problems.

That’s also the reason Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, gave during the debate for voting “present” on a bill he originally had sponsored.

“After I had sponsored it and helped to get it passed, it turned out that there was a legal provision in it that was problematic and needed to be fixed so that it wouldn’t be struck down,” he said.

Op-Ed Contributor
‘Present’ Perfect'
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html?ex=1360818000&en=9417ee6115534086&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

By ABNER J. MIKVA
Published: February 16, 2008
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON should probably be forgiven for not remembering the course on the state Constitution that she would have had to take as an eighth grader in Illinois. But had she remembered it, she would have known that Senator Barack Obama was not ducking his responsibility in the Illinois Senate when he voted “present” on many issues.

Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a “constitutional majority” to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a “present” vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote “present,” it fails.

In Congress, in contrast, a bill can pass in either the House or the Senate as long as more people vote for it than against it. If 10 people vote in favor and nine against, and the rest either vote “present” or don’t vote at all, the bill passes. It can actually pass with just one vote, as long as no one votes no.

In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.

--------------

Even if Senator Clinton does not remember the constitutional majority requirement in Illinois, one of her advisers might have explained it to her. When I was White House counsel, President Clinton frequently reminded me that he had taught constitutional law before he ran for public office. I would hope that he would assume that another constitutional scholar — Barack Obama — would be aware of his voting responsibilities as a state legislator
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html?ex=1360818000&en=9417ee6115534086&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[TexasObserver]

19. NARAL's board sees that Hillary is working to help McCain.

She is no longer considered loyal to the Democratic party, and not working to help the ticket win in November.

[PassingFair]

20. I had stopped giving money to Emily's list because I didn't want

...any going to Clinton's campaign.

Perhaps their donation were down because
they were being associated with her too.

[LisaM]

21. NARAL gave Hillary Clinton a 100% on their scorecard

Obama also answered a question at the Compassion Forum (it hurts my fingers just to type that!) that could have given them pause, when he stated that we should focus on abstinence education.

No, I believe that this, coupled with Edwards' announcement, is an orchestrated behind-the-scenes effort to drive her out. It's ugly politics IMO, but if it's done on Obama's behalf, no one will see it. That's my opinion, and you don't have to agree, but there is definitely some backroom bargaining going on.

I find NARAL's endorsement at this particular stage very disappointing. It's not just that their membership has donated to the Clintons. It's that they've donated to pro-choice WOMEN. A lot, a LOT, of their membership is going to be disappointed (I'm not a member). It's pretty clear this decision was made at the top. I don't think the members would have voted for this.

It also made me think of the article posted yesterday about how Obama is asking people not to donate to advocacy groups and how he is controlling the money. I understand that in the article they were referring to 527s, but that whole article really gave me pause. The money for this election is largely being gathered by him. It was a very strange article. I am not sure what I make of it.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10315_Page2.html

[jsmirman]

24. I think that when she threatens to crush their entire reason for being

see 7-2 in the SC, and is doing it just to pursue the wild journey of her boundless ego, that dampens the 100%.

[thewiseguy]

26. I am happy that they endorsed

Because most of us are getting very tired and frustrated with the primary process which should have been over sometime ago. This is not about disenfranchising the voters but shifting our focus to McCain. Hillary was not going to win. The math was not in her favour.

Meanwhile she pledged to stay in the race until the bitter end and did not shy away from hurting our chances in the GE by underscoring the divisions that still do exist in this country only to gain a few points.

It would be rather very stupid for NARAL to endorse Hillary at this point given that she is all but done. If women are not willing to come around and support Obama then say hello to president McCain. Maybe that would give you a pause too.

[jonestonesusa]

37. It's dirty politics if organizations and former candidates

endorse the front runner in the race?

I don't get your logic.

[loyalsister]

42. I got a robo-call from them Missouri NARAL today

It was to assure me that they believe we have two great candidates and they had no part in this decision. This chapter has always been pretty closely aligned with NOW, though. We had a heated 50\50 primary decision.
Obama has a lot of grassroots support. The leaders of NARAL may alienate the younger women they have been working so hard in recent years to recruit with moves like this.
The pro-choice men and women who could be responsible for helping to promote that position in the future may then turn their attention to other issues. I hope not, though.

[sniffa]

23. Probably because they're sexist

Either that, or they're trying to sabotage Obama for HRC's 2012 run. Those are the only two possible reasons.

[mmonk]

30. It's about the general election.

Not a rejection or betrayal. McCain is going to pretend to be a moderate. NARAL is going to let people know what they wil lose with this "moderate" or "maverick".

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[Beacool]

32. I won't criticize Edwards,

but NARAL can go to hell!!!!!

Judging by the amount of outraged messages on their site, I guess I wasn't the only one infuriated by their decision.

:thumbsdown:

[jonestonesusa]

38. I think we need a new song for all those who dare not to support HRC.

Another One Under the Bus?

[Radical Activist]

35. Obama has a great record on choice and women's issues.

Its not like they had to compromise their beliefs to make the endorsement. The race is over and its time to rally around the nominee.

[eridani]

40. I think they're most worried about McCain getting a free ride so far

Myself, I'm upset with them for having given money to Lieberman, even after he blew off emergency contraception.

[lojasmo]

44. Clinton isn't great on choice.

[Vinca]

45. It's obvious. They know the next election will be the difference

between abortion rights and coat hangers and Obama will be the nominee. He has to win. Failure is not an option.

[JVS]

46. "It's just a dumb move a couple weeks before it's over anyways."

Clinton has given a few indicators that this will be going on longer than a couple more weeks, and it is possible that NARAL wants it to be over and not to have it drag out. Right now support for Clinton amounts to support for a brokered convention, which is historically a mess. Support for Obama could be driven out of motivation to avoid that mess.

I'll add two more points.

NARAL might not be comfortable with Clinton's final gambit of rallying WV, KY, and PR in an attempt to win the nomination. WV and KY are not pro-choice strongholds, and with PR being heavily Roman Catholic, NARAL might see some pandering to social conservatism that makes them wary.

Also, with Obama being the likely nominee, NARAL might want to help him seal the deal in order to secure more access to his administration later.