NARAL Blowback

Dana Goldstein notes that there appears to be a massive backlash from state NARAL chapters and major financial supporters against the group's decision to endorse Barack Obama. National NARAL seems to have gotten too clever by half here. They essentially endorsed Obama in an Obama-McCain race, which would have been a non-story, but by jumping the gun by a couple of weeks thought they could earn themselves some brownie points and get some attention.

But it got attention, of course, because the timing made it a bit of a shivving of Hillary Clinton even though in the real world they waited until after Clinton had dropped well below the threshold of viability. And now people are mad. At the end of the day, this seems to be a situation where a little less clever PR and a little more education and outreach could have done some work -- it's clear that many of Clinton's fans genuinely don't understand that it's not possible for her to make up the ground she needs to and view efforts to get her to drop out as unfair efforts to rig things for Obama.

Comments

I hear where Chad hangs out people think Clinton still has a chance.

Posted by steve duncan | May 15, 2008 3:31 PM

Dude, you get smacked down over at the Corner today. Care to respond?

Posted by Robert Gruber | May 15, 2008 3:33 PM

Dude, you get smacked down over at the Corner today. Care to respond?

Posted by Robert Gruber | May 15, 2008 3:34 PM

Dude, you get smacked down over at the Corner today. Care to respond?

Posted by Robert Gruber | May 15, 2008 3:34 PM

Hmmm, so NARAL was too quick to determine that the Clinton campaign was not viable and unworthy of its support.

I thought it was a beautiful exercise of NARAL's institutional autonomy. Why should it have to continue to bear Clinton's campaign?

Posted by JohnMcG | May 15, 2008 3:35 PM

Sounds like this decision to CHOOSE was CONCEIVED in haste. NOW they want to ABORT ABORT ABORT the GROWING controversy.

Posted by Fester the Foetus | May 15, 2008 3:40 PM

Or maybe NARAL thinks it would be better for their causes if Clinton were to bow out gracefully sooner rather than later, and they were willing to accept some "blowback" to achieve that result.

For that matter, I don't see the obvious distinction between "clever PR" and "education and outreach". If merely presenting the facts was enough to educate everyone, everyone would already understand them. Rather, apparently some people need to hear the facts from a different messenger, and I think NARAL may be the right messenger for some of those people, just as Edwards is the right messenger for other people.

Posted by DTM | May 15, 2008 3:45 PM

It's funny that NARAL ruled that Hillary Clinton's campaign is unviable, in this the last trimester of the nominating contest.

Posted by Robert | May 15, 2008 3:47 PM

Looks like they should have consulted the state chapters before endorsing.

Also looks like Clinton supporters really do believe the hype as long as Hillary acts as if she has a chance, i.e. they've drunk the Kool Aid (and I thought the Obamabots were supposed to be the cultists) (looking at you Krugman!)

Kudos to John Edwards for coming out for Obama. He didn't have to.

Posted by Peter K. | May 15, 2008 3:51 PM

It's not so much that Hillary fans don't understand as that they are in the second stage of grieving: Volatile Reactions (or as Kübler-Ross calls it Anger). Mostly they are past the shock and denial, and we still have their Dispair and Disorganization to live through before we can all come together in Reorganization. As an Edwards supporter, and back in the mists of time a Dean supporter, I recognize the symptoms.

Posted by Retief | May 15, 2008 3:51 PM

On the other hand it shows the leaders of national NARAL are political realists and savvy enough to know that giving an endorsement when it might matter is worth a lot more than giving it later -- a lesson John Edwards needed to learn. After the girls finish throwing hissy fits, they will thank their far-sighted leaders.

Posted by Miande | May 15, 2008 3:55 PM

How could Clinton's fans possibly not understand that she can't make up ground at this point? Its been everywhere, on every cable outlet, on AOL, on Yahoo. What was NARAL going to do that mass media could not?

They understand it perfectly. They are hoping that the superdelegates will ignore the voices of the great unwashed voters (especially the evil activist caucus and African American and young and educated voters) and give Hillary the nomination anyway.

This meltdown over NARAL's choice (I thought that was the point!) to endorse a pro choice Democrat who is going to be the nominee is just ridiculous.

Posted by Kat | May 15, 2008 3:58 PM

Shanking..."to shank" is the verb. Shiv is a noun. Don't you learn anything from TV commercials?

Posted by Njorl | May 15, 2008 4:02 PM

Matt don't worry (re Corner) I love you it's okay

Posted by M | May 15, 2008 4:04 PM

It's not so much that Hillary fans don't understand as that they are in the second stage of grieving: Volatile Reactions (or as Kübler-Ross calls it Anger).

It seems as though some Clinton supporters have already passed anger and are moving into the bargaining stage. That's what all these "dream ticket" comments are about, I think. Hopefully, we'll soon move into the "depression" part of the cycle.

Posted by John | May 15, 2008 4:04 PM

The reaction to the NARAL endorsement demonstrates quite clearly why Hillary should have dropped out a while ago. It always sucks hard when your candidate loses and it takes a while to get over that. Hillary's going to end up cutting at least two months off the time available for her supporters to come to grips with an Obama candidacy. The other problem is that Hillary's constant moving of the goalposts and outright dishonorable behavior regarding MI and FL has now trained her supporters to regard ANY loss by Hillary as illigitimate. When (If?) she finally drops out, you can bet her supporters will continue to stew over it for a longer than usual time.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 15, 2008 4:16 PM

Oh, come on. Surely no one is surprised here. There's been every bit as much blowback against, say, prominent black Democrats who endorsed Clinton -- witness threats of primary challenges against representatives, for instance. And if you look at some of the criticism NARAL's getting, it's focusing on the fact that they could have just waited three more weeks for this to resolve itself, and by acting now it just furthers a rift they say they want to heal.

Posted by jbryan | May 15, 2008 4:20 PM

And if you look at some of the criticism NARAL's getting, it's focusing on the fact that they could have just waited three more weeks for this to resolve itself, and by acting now it just furthers a rift they say they want to heal.

I am begging you to explain how this would be 'resolved' in three weeks to any greater extent than it is now. The only explanation I can think of is stuff like this happening.

Posted by mpowell | May 15, 2008 4:26 PM

In the mid-90's, HRC laid the foundations of what might one day become her turnaround on reproductive choice -- she said that abortion was "a tragedy" that should be, among other things, "rare." If Hillary became president, and she judged the time right, she would not be morally or politically incapable of failing crucially to support choice. Pro-choice women would simply need to be seen by her as an expendable part of her base for that to happen. Emily's List ignores this, NARAL does not.

If Hillary is re-aligning already with "non-college whites," Hispanics/Catholics and with older women to whom the threat of unwanted pregnancy is distant, then NARAL may know which way the wind is blowing. Especially since Hillary's power-prayer group is pro-life.

To be nationally re-marketable in a few years' time, Hillary needs more of a gimmick than "I told you so." Self-reinvention as the leading feminist in the country to go pro-life would be newsy. And the groundwork would have been laid. This is a major reason why SCOTUS would be the wrong consolation prize for HRC too.

Posted by Elatia Harris | May 15, 2008 4:34 PM

it's clear that many of Clinton's fans genuinely don't understand that it's not possible for her to make up the ground she needs

No, it's clear that you don't understand what the word impossible means.

The word you are looking for is unlikely.

If it were impossible then Obama would already have a majority of pledged delegates. He doesn't. And the races coming up favor Hillary.

Also, she is getting stronger while he weakens.

The most likely outcome is that neither has a majority of pledged delegates going in to the convention. The supers will decide the nomination.

Trying to get Hillary to drop out before then IS an unfair effort to rig things for Obama.

Posted by Tejota | May 15, 2008 4:40 PM

The more precise way to put it is something like this:

Given the number of pledged and superdelegates Obama already has, and given the stable coalitions and dynamics that we have seen throughout this contest (despite all of Clinton's efforts to change them), it will be impossible for Clinton to win the nomination unless some unexpected external event occurs, one of such significance that it fundamentally alters the current coalitions and dynamics.

Or, to put it more metaphorically, Clinton can't win the nomination herself at this point. Rather, she needs some form of political lightning to strike Obama, and then have the nomination be given to her as the leading alternative.

Posted by DTM | May 15, 2008 4:51 PM

Tejota, how is urging SDs to make a choice now -- which they have absolutely every right under Party rules to do -- "unfair"? Clinton certainly got a few hundred to come out in support of her even before Iowa and NH. Was that "unfair?"

It's perfectly reasonable for a pro-choice group, which sees little difference between Obama and Clinton but a huge difference between either of them and McCain, to publicly support the all-but-certain nominee on the theory that ending it now makes a Dem win more likely in the fall.

They really don't care which one wins -- they're a pro-choice group, not a women's group, and both Dem candidates are pro-choice. But they don't want a continued nomination process to make a McCain victory more likely. Why is that so hard to understand?

I'd also point out that this kind of decision by an establishment, DC pro-choice group certainly doesn't make Clinton look like a connected, experienced, "ready on day 1" DC leader, either.

Posted by Pesto | May 15, 2008 4:53 PM

Tejota: What do you mean when you say the likely outcome is that "neither has a majority of pledged delegates"? Do you think Obama won't reach 1627 next week, or are you operating with some different definition of "a majority of pledged delegates" than everyone else?

Posted by Leo | May 15, 2008 4:54 PM

Hillary can't win, but Obama hasn't won yet. You aren't going to get a die-hard Hillary supporter to start supporting Obama until Hillary drops out or Obama actually wins the delegates (not at the convention, just pledged + supers = 2026). Any calls for party unity or getting behind the inevitable winner are going to fall on deaf ears, because the winner hasn't officially won yet.

Posted by Alex | May 15, 2008 4:57 PM

mpowell:
I am begging you to explain how this would be 'resolved' in three weeks to any greater extent than it is now. The only explanation I can think of is stuff like this happening.

In three weeks the voting will be over. I can do math perfectly well, thank you, and it's clear as day to me that there's really no chance for her to win this. But at least waiting three weeks would allow for the argument that all the voting is done, it's officially over, no one is trying to push her out, but the votes went against her. When you're an organization representing the truest of the true believers, that's sort of what's necessary... otherwise you end up with this mess.

Tejota:
No, it's clear that you don't understand what the word impossible means. ... The word you are looking for is unlikely.

"Unlikely" is several leagues of strength too weak to properly convey the uphill climb it would take for her to win.

If it were impossible then Obama would already have a majority of pledged delegates. He doesn't. And the races coming up favor Hillary.

Actually, they don't. Kentucky favors her, as does Puerto Rico. Oregon does not. Neither do Montana and South Dakota, the final two states to vote. And Sen. Obama will have a majority of the pledged delegates on Tuesday -- it is virtually impossible to imagine he won't, simply looking at the fact that he needs a miniscule number of the delegates up for grabs on the 20th, and given the apportionment rules in each district.

Also, she is getting stronger while he weakens.

She didn't get stronger in Indiana or North Carolina, and she won't be demonstrating strength in Oregon (20 point blowout?) or the last two plains states. The fact is that most of the "momentum swings" and "increasing/decreasing strength" arguments this season have been wrong; it's all been about the demographics and the scheduling.

Trying to get Hillary to drop out before then IS an unfair effort to rig things for Obama.

It's not rigging anything for organizations or individuals to endorse whoever they choose to. Everyone can put their cards on the table and show the candidates where they stand. There's nothing unfair about that. The idea that endorsements are undemocratic is ludicrous.

Posted by jbryan | May 15, 2008 5:00 PM

Tejota,

How is Obama weakining when he is ahead of her? It's all about delegates.

Yes she may have won some contests of late but that would not have mattered because she cannot catch up to him. As time goes by the harder it is to catch up.

Posted by Micheline | May 15, 2008 5:01 PM

Obviously Tejota is still mired in the "denial" stage.

First, as said above, Obama WILL have a majority of pledged delegates. OK it's not impossible for that to happen, but as also pointed out it's waaaaayyy beyond "unlikely." He will get a majority of pledged delegates next Tuesday.

And he is most definitely not weakening. What is happening is that we've left the portion of the primary calendar that is most favorable to Obama and we just passed through the portion that's most favorable to Hillary. And in that stretch she...regained almost no ground.

Now the final contests about offset one another, and the superdels are steadily moving to his side.

Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee.

Posted by ResumeMan | May 15, 2008 5:13 PM

Could the blowback just be because NARAL or rather it's leadership gave Obama cover the day after he got blown out in West Virginia by 41 points. Just why did Bob Casey the anti-choice senator from Pennsylvania endorse Obama? It's obvious that Clinton has been pro-choice solidly and for much longer than Obama and most of the membership support her. Why would you support NARAL in such a case? There are many other national groups that support abortion that you can give your money to. NARAL's leadership has done this before in recent years,this is simply the straw that broke it's back.

Posted by Mark Anderson | May 15, 2008 5:15 PM

The blowback against NARAL by Clinton supporters is not based on the fact that Clinton supporters think she will win or that NARAL's endorsement would make her win. The blowback is because NARAL is a single-issue interest group, and they dissed the candidate who is better on that issue. (Yes, Clinton has fought much harder for reproductive choice than Obama; that's awfully hard to deny if you look at their records.) It's not clear why they had to make an endorsement at all before the general election. They could have easily starting slamming McCain's pro-life record without dissing Clinton.

Posted by Zon | May 15, 2008 5:37 PM

(Yes, Clinton has fought much harder for reproductive choice than Obama; that's awfully hard to deny if you look at their records.)

Can you go over her record over hard fighting in this area? I'm just not sure how much she's done on the issue; genuine question.

Posted by jbryan | May 15, 2008 5:58 PM

For example, Clinton & Patty Murray pushed through legislation that forced the FDA to (finally) make Plan B (emergency contraception) available over the counter. Clinton spoke out forcefully against the confirmation of Alito & Roberts because of their threat to Roe v. Wade. She also worked on programs to reduce teen pregnancy during her years as first lady. And in her role as first lady, Clinton spoke out on the international stage (e.g., Beijing speech in 1995) about reproductive choice in the context of women's rights more generally.

Also, if you just compare the candidates' websites, you will see that Clinton has way, way more to say about issues of reproductive choice and women's health than does Obama. Not that I doubt that Obama is pro-choice.... but Clinton has more of a demonstrated commitment in this area.

Posted by Zon | May 15, 2008 6:17 PM

Petey = "we still have their Dispair and Disorganization to live through".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 15, 2008 6:59 PM

I guess it would mark me as tremendously naive to admit that I'm surprised that NARAL apparently didn't consult its state & regional chapters.

Posted by El Cid | May 15, 2008 7:13 PM

It's funny that on the original endorsement thread, so many said they were cowards for endorsing after the outcome had been determined. Which I thought was fine...it was their poilitcal calculation that made it meaningful. They were saying that anyone with brain knows that Obama can't lose this. He could be found with a live boy AND a dead girl at this point and the famed Obamabot kool-aid drinkers would still be enough to push him over the top.

Apparently the NARAL folk didn't think enough about the presence or absence of said cerebral matter in their state chapters.

Posted by nolaboyd | May 15, 2008 7:25 PM

Since mid-February the Clinton story has been "We'll go into the convention trailing in pledged delegates, but ask the superdelegates to throw it to us anyhow."* There is absolutely nothing about the end of the primaries June 3rd that changes that strategy. There's nothing about losing on superdelegates either, since they can switch.
Ergo I don't understand the implicit deadline--if it isn't over until the lady in the pants suit says it's over, we could be waiting until the end of August. Or next February. If the party and other groups are going to start acting like it has a nominee, it should do so once the nominee is apparent. He is. Waiting for Hillary to admit it is an unfair condition. And asking for chivalry here--because I can never picture this going down if Biden and Richardson were locked in the same positions--is wrong in so many ways.

I agree with Matt, though, that it's not just the chivalry "so mean of the boys to point out she's through" argument; there seems to be a conviction that math is too tough to rely on, which saddens me.

*The only thing that's changed is that back then they tossed around numbers like "less than 10 you'd go for it, more than 100 you couldn't make much case." For obvious reasons, no more numbers. That and "something will happen with Florida and Michigan which causes us to win."

Posted by Deborah | May 15, 2008 8:47 PM

"It's not clear why they had to make an endorsement at all before the general election."

1) It is perfectly clear, and has already been explained upthread; 2) The general election has already started.

It's hilarious how dumb and cloistered essentially every Clinton voter is. Your own candidate has argued--truthfully, if heinously--that even pledged delegates are free to switch their minds. Indeed, just today, news broke of an Edwards pledged delegate endorsing Obama. Technically, he won't be the nominee until the convention--but why wait that long? Even Hillary, betrayed by her uncharacteristic bouts of decency, has all but admitted she has no chance.

Hillary hasn't had a chance for three months now. She still hasn't one. Give it up. Your mediocre, resume padding, nepotist blew her chance. Spite against allies acting rationally is counterproductive.

Posted by Client #11 | May 15, 2008 9:07 PM

If it were impossible then Obama would already have a majority of pledged delegates. He doesn't. And the races coming up favor Hillary.

Actually, even then it won't be genuinely impossible. The votes of delegates aren't truly locked in until they're cast -- at the convention in Denver. My guess is Hillary will only issue a quasi endorsement of Obama in June, when she'll suspend her campaign. She'll sit on her nearly 2,000 delegates and tepidly campaign for Obama -- all the while hoping for an Obama-damaging miracle over the summer, and all the while contemplating whether or not she wants to try and force Obama to put her on the ticket.

Posted by Groupie | May 15, 2008 10:09 PM

Kudos to the Kubler-Ross people: we're on the cusp between anger and bargaining. It even explains the weird recurring posts in which Clinton supporters angrily complain that Obama isn't wooing them.

Posted by Deborah | May 15, 2008 10:15 PM

Clinton attacked Obama for following a NARAL political strategy, having Democrats in safe seats vote "present" on abortion matters to cover those in more volatile districts. Guess what, she gave up the right to have NARAL endorse her at that point. Some feminist.

Posted by Reality Man | May 15, 2008 10:22 PM

I always feel better when that caped super hero REALITY MAN is on the scene. I just can't remember, is he dc comics or marvel?
I laugh and laugh everytime I see someone calling himself reality man and laugh even harder when he trots out the straw man/reality man contrast (he must be saving that for his next post). What do you think he's come up with for his chest logo?
do you think he has the name trademarked?

The ugly truth for the delirious obama folks is that the total is not reached, that obama can't get there officially without the supers who don't vote until the convention and NO ONE has ever climbed out of the race with so many delegates. People take thier delegates to the convention. FDR won on the third ballot. Lincoln won on the umpteenth ballot. Obama folks know that if it gets that far anything could happen. They might draft Gore. The ugly truth is that Hillary can really be a powerful force at the convention, shape the platform, etc.etc.
perversely I think a convention fight would be very good for our party. Obama will be well rid of the third party crazies and hillary haters who are riding his coattails.

Posted by Michael C. | May 15, 2008 11:35 PM

The state groups weren't in on the decision to endorse because they're part of the 501c(3) which can't endorse, rather than part of the PAC wing, which does the endorsing.

We've basically just seen the first attempt at reconciliation between the two Democratic camps. We're also seeing the more rabid side of the Monster camp lash out at party unity; it's this very fact that makes her a monster.

Posted by Luke | May 16, 2008 2:50 PM