Webchat Transcript on Obama Endorsement

Wow...that chat was just...scary. I don't know if you are just rationalizing, naive, or downright stupid. And I don't believe for a minute that you thought carefully enough about the potential for backlash in your decision.

As for this:

"Without a clear Democratic nominee, Sen. John McCain has been getting a free ride with the media, and a critical voting bloc that could very well swing the election: pro-choice Independent and Republican women. These women could very well make the difference between a pro-choice president in the White House and another four years of anti-choice policies from John McCain.

With our endorsement, John McCain’s free ride ends. "

Are you KIDDING? Do you honestly think that your endorsement suddenly ended John McCain's "free ride" or that you'd even have that much power over Republican women?

Republican women, by the way, are much more likely to vote for CLINTON than Obama for a number of reasons...so your argument here is just downright silly.

I'm continually stunned by the lack of good judgment displayed here by NARAL's leaders. No wonder the left has been struggling for so many years...with insane decisions like these being made, it's a wonder that we have a left at all left.

It is way past time to reunite our Democratic Party and move on to defeat every single GOP Candidate, thats is hoping for Election/re-election in every area of Government. The Democratic Nominee will shortly be selected.

It will then be time to go to work as a Democrat.

Will you meet this task?

You, your daughters, and your Grand Daughters are counting on Your help and Support.

PEACE
John

faher of three daughters, brother to two sisters..
and pround Grand Father of one Grand Daughter.

RE: ENDORSEMENT OF SEN. OBAMA.

Simply put, I will NEVER AGAIN DONATE to NARAL. EVER.

My pro-choice commitment, along with Sen. Hillary Clinton's, is never in doubt.
==this was not an endorsement that needed making
==there was no need to insult and scorn half the pro-choice community
==this action speaks to the fact the NARAL is NOT, NOT, NOT an entity to trust in the fight for reproductive rights.

Your organization's stupidity is beyond comprehension. Thankfully, there are other ways to support the pro-choice movement, of which I've been an active part for 3 decades.

NEVER, EVER NARAL!! NOT A DIME!!

From Yahoo news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080516/pl_politico/10408):

In response to the current controversy, Keenan says people will get over their "broken hearts."

Besides sounding incredibly condescending, you are also very wrong. Your arrogance is showing...

Nancy,

ET TU Bruti!!! With only three weeks of voting left, you just couldn't wait. Your endorsement serves no benefit other than slap Hillary when she was gracefully finishing the campaign. With friends like you and the leadership who needs enemies. It is no wonder the Pro-lifers laugh at the disorganization in the Pro-Choice movement. My family has been pro-choice since 1914 through four generations. In 1972, I volunteered in a hospital where a high school classmate of mine was irreversibly injured after attempting to give herself an abortion.

Until yesterday my confidence in the Pro-Choice leadership and NARAL has never waivered. The leadership's actions yesterday, however, were irresponsible, immoral and simply pandering. What were you thinking? Did you really believe that Barack would ignore NARAL if you didn't stick it to Hillary before the primaries ended? If I were a superdelegate considering your endorsement I would say that your endorsement was worthless because you compromized the organization's loyalty to one of its strongest proponents for nothing but a minute of airtime.

Shame on you. You have turned NARAL into a joke.

I also read the article where Nancy says everyone will get over their broken hearts. It's taking every ounce of composure I can muster to not describe that woman in explicitly accurate terms. You Obama people can have her. It hurts to look at her or hear her speak. The live chat was a complete sham.

Simply put, bad decision to officially endorse either Democratic candidate before this thing is decided for certain. There is no reason NARAL could not have waited just a little while longer & spared everyone this drama. Instead of helping to unite the pro-choice community & progressives, you are helping to create division. Not a smart move.

YOU BLEW IT. Man up and admit it. Nothing worse than trying to BS your way through a HUGE mistake.

Naral, how dare you register Naral advocacy for Barrack Obama? What in the world were you thinking? Polls consistently have found that over 50% of the likely Democrat voters are women. And, way over 50% of these female Democrat voters are Hillary Clinton supporters. It stands to reason that very, very likely well over 50% of Naral's female membership supporters are, therefore, also Hillary Clinton followers.

Additionally, whatever happened to Sisterhood, Naral? Hillary Clinton has loyally supported women's rights and Naral for over much of her political career. When women's rights issues have come up in Congress, Hillary has had the guts to vote "yes", jeopardy or not to her political career. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has taken the safe and neutral course and voted only "present".

So, you choose to follow Barrack Obama to the White House. Wonderful. Brilliant. Political suicide for you.

Following this post, I am going to send my official request to Naral to drop me off their membership list. And I hope other Hillary Democrats do the same.

No more money for you, Naral.

Gosh, as a republican who was looking for at least a party or group that wasn't into self-destruction; guess we don't have an exclusive on "bad strategy"....Hillary was and is winning in all the places where some of us who have choice and glad there are some here who still will support Hillary.

Whitneymuse

I've been a NARAL member for many years. Unfortunately, I'm finished with your organization. I am absolutely stunned that you threw your support at Senator Obama before the Demo nomination is decided. How could you! Tomorrow, I plan to go to the Clinton headquarters in Astoria OR and call potential supporters. Maybe this betrayal will bring out female voters to vote for the woman who has supported women's issues for so long. As far as I know, super-delegates can change their minds as they please. I hope you've pushed this contest back to Senator Clinton. How could you!?

As a woman, I was completely shocked that NARAL would endorse Obama. As a man, my husband was flabbergasted as well, since he can see through the silly love-fest with Obama that half the country is drunk with. We both would have thought you guys at the very least would refrain from helping bring down a sister. What a travesty. Please recosider your endorsement. You must, in your souls, realize that it was a HUGE mistake, no matter what your egos are telling you to say to the "broken-hearted" public to CYA. Either endorse both or endorse Hillary. Otherwise, I won't be marching for NARAL again, that's for sure.

I've written a couple of times because I am so upset by Naral. In fact, I just joined NOW and donated extra. Tomorrow it will be Emily's List. I could not believe your patronizing quotes about getting thrown and then getting by on the horse, something about Montana. Well, Sweetie, most of us are not from Montana and believe me, you've done more to hurt Obama's chances than helped him. You have galvanized Hillary's supporters and we will not forget your cavalier attitude and disloyal behavior, writing off anyone who is over 40. You have inadvertently founded a movement for women who are sick of the sexism that has been demonstrated throughout this campaign by the press and others to rebel. And watch us do it. And you and your candidate will not benefit from the rebellion. . .and it doesn't matter if Obama chooses that woman from Missouri or Kansas. They are not Hillary.

I just read the transcript of your contrived web talk. That was rediculous. Your organization and Nancy made no sense and continue to make no sense. Why can't you confess that you made a huge mistake? I think the many people who have expressed their anger at your endorsement should join together and protest in front of your headquarters until you accept your mistake and acknowledge our feelings in a more real and less paranizing manar. I want one of you talking heads to really address our disgust and anger!

Wow. I only thought I was angry before. But I'll get over my "broken heart"???

How condescending. How belittling.

Newflash for Nancy: We are not dating. I'm not pining for our lost relationship. I was never in love with NARAL or you.

I and the thousands who responded on this blog and others consider reproductive rights to be a very serious and important issue. How dare you diminish our beliefs and efforts, and the cause in general, by implying that those who disagree with you are weepy and overemotional. You really, really don't understand the consequences of your actions or your speech.

Given that most of your base is female, your choice of words was almost (although not quite) as bad as 'sweetie.' Although at least Obama only called a few women 'sweetie'. You've just insulted thousands of your supporters.

Oh, and Second Newsflash: most of us don't live in Montana.

Pro-choice implies actual choice, not dictatation.

Thank you, NARAL, for making a choice for America and my children that i agree with.

Emily's list is good for women.
However, insulting NARAL, telling them to wait, is using tactics that got Hillary into trouble in the first place. Emily's List, in effect, already endorsed Hillary, and are using the politics of her campaign to attack and divide.

We have contributed in the past and will continue to in the future

All I can say is that Obama buys super delegates and I'm sure he paid NARAL -- whatever it was it was not enough to stay neutral. Many people including myself have lost respect for NARAL for endorsing Obama.

This was a political move coming at a time when Hillary is a woman, who has been under pressure to drop out for how many contests, where she has won, to pave the way for a man who is the least experienced man to run in modern times. You could have remained neutral but Obama wanted you to help him bury Hillary and you did -- WHY??????????????

I won't be donating to NARAL again, I'm disgusted.

I just read the transcript, thank you guys for taking the time to do that, because you didn't have to. As you can see, there's not too much you can say to stop the hate and anger from coming at you, hopefully time will heal.

I'm so sorry that you guys have to be subjected to such cruelty. But as a woman of faith - I believe you will be added to greatly, for every supporter that leaves. My heart truly goes out to you. You don't deserve this...especially from people that said they love you and believe in your work. Stand strong NARAL and continue to focus on your issues. I am a NEW supporter and will definitely pass your link on to many.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your decision and for "trying" to reach out to those who are very angry with you. Thank God you have tough skin!!! (smiless)

The hate I hear in some of these posts, is truly sad. They are not willing to give you 'one ounce' of credit. But please know that there are many of us WOMEN - who do support your decision and will do our all to help Sen Obama win in November.

You people have singlehandedly bought into the good ol boy network, and as women I am shocked you alone set women back ...not forward. This is an organization that supports woman, and yo endorse the black guy? why just to ride with the tide...as he hasn't done anything but lie about his being against the war, slanting it to look as though he actually was in the senate and entitled to vote, when in fact, he wouldn't be sworn into the senate til Jan 2005....hardly there when Bush hasd his WMD intelligence report threat, when in fact , Kerry,Dodd,Daschle,Nelson,Edwards all voted just as Hillary did. Others like Biden voted the same as well. Even Mr Obama hwho said in his Audacity book had he been privy to intel reports (which he was not) and had he actally been a US senator (which he was not) he may have voted the same......and yet he slanted and used that against Hillary. Obama has maternal lineage also that goes against his saying how poor he was...Lynne Cheney verified he was related to her husband Dick Cheney...Obama has 8 presidents (3 are alive both Bush's-Carter) and 5 others...he has 2 supreme court judges, 3 seantors, 2 congressmen,...and more..wargs.com (library of congress geneologist)Richardson , Edwards, Obama all well connected Kerry's lineage is almost obscene 13 presidents etc
He also is mixed up with Rezko and money for the shady land deal he entered into with Rezko was from a loan to Rezko...from Auchi...who worked for Saddam Hussein. That was all under the radar...as the press only lets you hear what they wish you to hear. He did favors for Rezko and a Blackman with a table tennis company....he is hardly the man to change Washington......Sweety...as he called the reporter...you guys ought to be real proud of yourselves.....Things are not always as they seem.
YOu have screwed women to endorse the good ol boys club...and bought into MSNBC...we call it Obama headquarters...all pundits not actual newscasters... Cafferty another big mouth opinionated vote swayer on CNN
I will never contribute to your company again

Wargs
The following material on the immediate ancestry of Barack Obama should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft. (MATERNAL SIDE OF FAMILY)

Christopher Challender Child and Robert Battle contributed to this report. In addition, corrections were provided by Joe David Bellamy, Judy Barry Strangfeld, Gratia Dunham Mahoney, Fred Chalfant, P. J. Evans, James Quinn, and James R. Kuttler.

Barack Hussein OBAMA was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr. of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann DUNHAM of Wichita, Kansas. His parents met while both were attending the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where his father was enrolled as a foreign student. When Barack Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father moved to Connecticut to continue his education before returning to Kenya.

When Obama was six, his mother married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian oil manager and moved to Jakarta, Indonesia. Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro was born after the family moved to Indonesia. Four years later she sent him back to the United States to live with his maternal grandmother.
Barack Obama graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he met his future wife, Michelle Robinson. They have two daughters, Malia and Sasha.

DESCENDANTS OF Barack Hussein Obama (born August 4, 1961

PRESIDENTS:
1.Thomas WOODROW WILSON (1856-1924
2.GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH (b. 1924), US President, m. Barbara Pierce
3.GEORGE WALKER BUSH (b. 1946), US President
4. HARRY S. TRUMAN (1884-1972),
5.JAMES EARL CARTER (b. 1924), US President
6. James Madison
7 Lyndon Johnson
8 Gerald Ford

VP's
1. Richard Bruce Cheney

Winston Churchill

SENATORS:
1. BIRCH EVANS BAYH Jr
2. BIRCH EVANS BAYH III (Evan Bayh (Ind)
3. Robert Carlyle Sale, later ROBERT CARLYLE BYRD

CONGRESS REP:
1.JOHN CHANEY (1790-1881), US Representative, m. Mary Ann Lafere
2. GALUSHA AARON GROW (1822-1907

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES:
1. GABRIEL DUVALL (1752-1844), US Supreme Court Justice
2. MAHLON PITNEY (1858-1924), US Supreme Court Justice, m. Florence Theodora Shelton

GOVERNORS:
1. JOHN ELLIS "Jeb" BUSH
2. HOWARD BRUSH DEAN III (VT)
3. Gov. THOMAS HINCKLEY (1619-1706

UK PRIME MINISTER:
1. Maurice) HAROLD MACMILLAN, 1st Earl of Stockton (1894-1986), UK Prime Minister

NOTABLE PERSONS:
1. Patricia Ann Paugh m. m. John Bennett Ramsey
2. JONBENET PATRICIA RAMSEY (1990-1996)
3. .GORDON BITNER HINCKLEY (b. 1910), president of the Mormon church
4. Dorothy Walker m. Prescott Sheldon Bush
5. JOHN WARNOCK HINCKLEY (b. 1955), attempted assassin Reagan (fixationon Jodie Foster)
6. JOHN SAMUEL WATERS Jr (b. 1946), filmmaker

NOBILITY:
1. Mary Victoria Leiter m. GEORGE NATHANIEL CURZON, 1st Marquess CURZON (1859-1924)
2. Bessie Wallis Warfield- Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor (previously Wallis Simpson; previously Wallis Spencer; born Bessie Wallis Warfield;
3. OLIVIER Comte de CAUMONT La FORCE

ASTRONAUTS:
1. JOHN HERSCHEL GLENN Jr

ARTISTS:
1. GEORGIA O'KEEFFE (1887-1986), artist
2. CHARLES SAMUEL ADDAMS (1912-1988), cartoonist

AUTHORS:
1. KEN ELTON KESEY (1935-2001
2. JOHN ERNEST STEINBECK (1902-1968),

INDUSTRIALISTS AND BUSINESS
1. JOHN PIERPONT MORGAN JR. (J.P. Morgan) (1867-1943), banker
2. GEORGE WASHINGTON RIGGS (1813-1881), banker
3. THEODORE NEWTON VAIL (1845-1920), founder of A T & T

JOURNALISTS:
1. ALEXANDER BRITTON HUME (Fox News) (b. 1943), journalist

CELEBRITIES:
1. Leonidas Frank ("LON") CHANEY (1883-1930), actor, m. Frances Cleveland Creighton
2. Creighton Tull Chaney ("LON CHANEY Jr") (1906-1973), actor
3. JUSTIN RANDALL TIMBERLAKE (b. 1981), singer
4. JOHNATHAN SOUTHWORTH RITTER (1948-2003), actor
5. LOUDON SNOWDEN WAINWRIGHT III musician
6. CLARENCE LINDEN (Buster) CRABBE (1908-1983- Tarzan
7. William Hall "BILLY" BUSH (b. 1972), entertainment reporter
8. KATHARINE HOUGHTON HEPBURN (1909-2003), actress
9. WILLIAM BRADLEY PITT
10. CHRISTOPHER REEVE (1952-2004
12. Elizabeth Hadley Richardson m. Ernest Miller Hemingway
| .John Hadley Hemingway m. Byra Whittesley Whitlock
| .MARGAUX HEMINGWAY (1955-1996), actress
| .MARIEL HADLEY HEMINGWAY (b. 1961), actress
13. PARK OVERALL

Hilary Supporters:

Why are you blaming NARAL or even Sen Obama for Hilary not winning the nomination? Why aren't you blaming her campaign managers or Hilary herself?

No one put HRC where she is - we each must take responsibility for out own actions. You are trying to blame everyone else for why HRC isn't the projected nominee. That's dead wrong!

Being hurt and disappointed, I get that. But being enraged, bitter, nasty, disrespectful - and ready to curse out everyone that's for Obama or McCain is BEYOND me! Now you are going to HATE Obama - because HRC didn't win; what kind of NONSENSE and ignorance is that? Why not hate McCain?????

Where is your love? Where is the compassion? Forgiveness? Compromise? I hear nothing but HATE. I'm sure HRC would not even be proud of the disgusting things you guys are saying to NARAL and the Obama supporters. You guys need to take a breath, take a break and check your heart.

I already knew he wasn't poor and the food stamps comment was a gem. His mother traveled to Hawaii..for college and Indonesia, and we all know you cannot fly paying with food stamps. I also learned Obama's mother was an anthropologist, and her mother was a bank vice president, you remember Milburn Drysdale from the Beverly Hillbilly's ...I believe VP's make the bucks. the grandmother he talks about was gramps 3rd wife...so a step-grandmom...who gave an interview while Obama was running for President saying she was a christian, all the while previously she had given an interview to the Times Newspaper..saying she was a devout muslim....I guess portraying y9ourself as a poor bumpkin with granny living in a hut...Obama didn't want to mention rich white granny and college educated anthropologist mom....sort of would muck up his story of "I'm just like you poor folks"

Susan - you are TOOOOOO funny girl!!! Didn't get your way, so now here comes the "black" guy comment! WHEW! We love you Senator Obama!! All the white and black in you!!!

As a white woman, I have NO problems whatsoever with a black, white or brown leader.

It's a shame that you have to stoop so low. But that's what people do when they FEAR. Now the TRUTH comes out - it's not that NARAL supported Obama - you're really mad because they have supported "THE BLACK MAN".

But we don't FEAR you or your racist remarks. :-)

NARAL SUCKS!! and after all the years and things Hillary has done supporting women, and just like the turncoat politician good ol boys who want to keep that job for the boys only club.....NARAL did their part to help them do so....So glad to see women are still shooting themselves in the foot I am furious for women everywhere....No wonder women are held back

How much money did Obama pay you? Obama bought the caucuses and the super delegates with the Hope Fund. But, people vote...buying caucuses does not help.

Who better to protect Women's Rights than Hillary Clinton? And who supports Hillary....WOMEN!
The polls were showing Hillary was the candidate that would beat McCain, not Obama. People will not vote for Obama. Obama has lost a lot of supporters from the states that voted earlier. You people are an absolute joke and every woman in this country should turn their back on your organization.

So, enjoy what little time you have left! Your stupidity is helping John McCain to be elected!

If you are THAT mad and pissed off - why do you guys keep coming here?

Why don't you just go on with your life and move on to the next group that you keep saying you've joined - go make some calls for HRC or something and help her win the nomination!

Instead you sit here and spue all that UGLINESS! NARAL you have done great work! KEEP IT UP! Stop reading these blogs and go help Obama win.

The rest of you that's spueing hate - Move on already!

Jenny is there something wrong with saying the word black guy...If there is and I am politically incorrect too bad! I have a black nephew I am very close too and am raising myself so black isn't an issue to me...it's people like you that want to yell racist all the time whebnever anyone says anything about your candidate. I don't have a racist bone in my body. Jenny why are you voting for Barack it's not because of his experience.

I am not going to say anything about Obama,except he just made senator in 2005..?? But what I will say is that NARAL should be so ashamed at yet again setting women back. The african american male got the vote long before any women of any color got the vote, so here we are again..You see how women are regarded by Men in power here in the US (just look at the SWEETIE comment and then not answering her question)As there was most likely an important male talking to him. ...it's simply women helping to hold woman back....Do you realize there are many women leaders throughout the world, and yet the Men hold the power here....Again NARAL you should be so ashamed...I'm shocked!!

In response to the current controversy, Keenan says people will get over their "broken hearts."

Keenan is stupid!! and NEVER A DIME!

Lord help us! All the pro-life nuts just showed up. You know - those guys that smell bad and walk around in front of abortion clinics with pics.

The very guys that go home a rape their daughters.

The very guys that picket soldier's funerals with signs that read "God Hates You".

Yikes. They show up like ants at a picnic. You can never really get rid of them. Nasty little pests!

I will work hard, to make sure people in my organization never donate anything to NARAL. We can help women in other ways and with other organizations the do the same as NARAL....say goodbye to our money, as you won't see any of it! You women have no loyalty whatsoever!

Now, you guys are making up all types of LIES about Sen Obama! Why are you doing this? What did that man do to YOU? What did HE do to HRC?

Sen Obama offers a powerful message and a freshness to the White House - that millions of us are hungry for. Not because we're against Sen Clinton - we just support Sen Obama.

Why are you guys filled with such hate, though?

Do you think this is going to make people WANT to vote for your candidate. It's definitely a turn off for me and I'll be voting soon in SD. And if this is an indication of what HRC is about - I am seriously rethinking my vote.

On Liz's post..I remember seeing Lynne Cheney on a talk show pushing her book,and being asked about a rumor that Obama was related to her husband Dick, and seeming embarrassed he was a democrat. It was pretty funny,and she verified irt was true after she checked it out. The corporate news never picked up or reported his lineage to so many presidents...and how odd is that, although you could find it on the internet

For those insensed like I am, and may never get over the fact that it is more than a slap and disloyalty to Hillary Clinton, who has supported this cause for years, while Obama was in school. But I will never ever get over how women can hurt each other in the way of holding them back..like men have done to them in the past ..AND PRESENT...the feminists of the 60's would be livid and horrified! All the work towards equality and with one swift...endorsement wipe all the progress for equality away just like that...INEXCUSABLE!,THOUGHTLESS, My money will in future go to EMILY'S LIST or NOW, but NEVER and I mean NEVER will I ever again donate to NARAL

Oh, Tammi - grow up. If you are that clueless about what we are so upset and you are so unaffected by what has been done to Hillary and women - then you were not going to vote for Hillary anyway.

All I can say is people say alot of things about themsleves that doesn't mean it is true...especially when you are running for president, for those of you who know what CFR is..Obama and his supporters are members..Council on Foreign Relations...read a book that tells all about it "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen. CRF runs this country....thats not a joke

I meant Obama endorsers, Edwards,Richardson,Daschle,Kennedy, Kerry...all members of CFR

If Women stuck together like men did or african americans do....we would have had loyalty.....aslo this primary apportioned delegates...which is odd to say the least...most times it's winner take all, and since Hillary won all the big states, NY,Ca,TX,FL,NJ.....and she won all but one swing state MO....Obama says he won Colorado and Iowa (swings) but those were caucuses party insiders and not the whole population voting...Hillary won white blue collar workers and Reagan democrats...so if Obama gets the Nomination he will lose in November to McCain....as he couldn't win any swing states that can go either way republican or democrat..and then there is FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN...Obama couldn't pull those states...and there are NO caucuses in November....so to me it looks like 100 more years in Irag and McCain........P.S. NARAL is beyond DISLOYAL to WOMEN...they gave it up before she conceded...if SHE does

I am very disappointed with the decision NARAL made today, and will not give any more money to this organization.

During this entire presidential race we've sat on the sidelines and watched the rampant sexism and misogyny toward Hillary, while Obama basked in a warm glow of political cronies (many whom the Clintons helped, by the way) who are chomping at the bit to have their piece in the administration should he win.

I always felt that NARAL stood up for women all over the world and that by holding up other women (like Hillary) they put forth that message. This decision was made prematurely, given that the fight for the nomination is not over, and Hillary has so much experience being a champion for women's rights, access to birth control, and abortion rights. She is the obvious candidate to support, not some whippersnapper who has hardly any experience and would never understand the agony that many women face because he is a man.

Shame on NARAL.

NARAL - stay strong. Don't let the words of negativity get to you. You have a GREAT program with a GREAT mission - and GREAT people will always see that and support you.

What you are experiencing is the FEAR tactic that many have used in the past. Thank GOD your mission is bigger than Obama, Hilary & McCain!

Thank you for the wonderful work you do for ALLLLL people. I pray an abundance of support will flow your way...as you stand behind your decision. I support you and your decision whole heartedly.

I'm so pissed off I'm going to vote for McCain and hope the he appoints a prolifer to the supreme court. Then they will get rid of Roe v. Wade. That will show you. Ha.

So you're saying everyone that support Obama is....whaatt exactly? Hypocritics? Backstabbers? What?

This is AMERICA - we can support whomever we choose! Why are you so mad, because we chose Obama! NO I don't GET that! Not HATING someone for no apparent reason because your candidate didn't win.

She began to loose this race when HRC went NEGATIVE! Nasty! LOW! JUST like you are doing right now! The negative mess don't work anymore! We've seen it play out for YEARS now. We're SICK of it! And that's the only reason, HRC isn't the nominee today. If she had kept running a DECENT campaign and stayed focus on the issues - she would have won. But MILLIONS of WOMEN - decided that HRC no longer represened THEM. And I am included in that number. I'm not for tearing someone down with lies and low blows and saying ANYTHING any one wants to hear to win. That's why people were turned off.

I know I know. You don't see that nor will you ever believe it. I know. It's easier to Blame Obama, I know.

Just because you say it doesn't mean it isn't so.
YOUR CAMPAIGN was the one and is the one that created this divide.

And, you calling Hillary LOW - Get lost Tammi!

I can't handle any of you anymore. You are not on here because you care about choice or about women or anyone really - you are on here because you are PAID to be on here.

Everyone has had to treat your candidate with such kid gloves for fear of being called racist. Well, NO MORE! I am not racist. But, I am mad that your campaign has tried to label Bill Clinton and Hillary and others as being so.

Have fun campaigning to LOSE!

Fellow Clinton Supporters, are you a person of faith? Are you a practicing Christians/Catholic? I too am a HRC supporter but I am deeply troubled by the posts I have read here. Your attacks are brutal. Relentless.

"Judge not unless you be judged?"
"Love your neighbors as yourself?"
"Love them who use you?"
"Forgive seven x seven?"
"Put no other GOD before me?"
"Do not worship another?"
"You should not murder (even with WORDS)?"
"Do not bear FALSE witness?"

For those of you who are Christian - are you displaying the love of the God you serve? Are you making HIM happy with your actions, words, hate? Are you TRUSTING HIM? Or have you made this all about Hilary? I know you mean well. I realize you love Hilary. But can we support Hilary while not tearing others down? If we can't - what do we have?

To SUSAN:

The way you said and go and vote for the black guy - yes you sound RACIST. And your nephew need to talk with you. Because anyone who has a black family member that they dearly loved - would not refer to black people in such a derogatory way.

Oh, now Obama started the negative attack??

WOW! I won't even comment on that. Any news media or video tapes or newsarticles can show you otherwise. So no need for me to answer that.

But what can we do to JOIN forces now? How can we resolve this?

I just had to add my voice as a strong, free woman for choice who appreciates the risk NARAL took and also the anger that my sister Clinton supporters feel. But the point is not to be missed that Nov. is closing in on us and we need to show McCain for who he truly is. As a national group, NARAL is in a unique position to draw attention to his anti-woman, anti-choice stance by making this endorsement now, partially because it IS controversial and will draw attention. I am a woman, pro-choice and pro-Obama, and I am just going to say again, thank you for supporting the Democratic candidate and putting choice in the spotlight in the general election by making the endorsement at this time.

"If Women stuck together like men did or african americans do..."

Some of the women here are decrying sexism, and in the next key stroke saying some of the most racially offensive things. Hate and discrimination isn't exclusive to women only.

You people saying things about Obama's heritage or race or making gross generalizations--like that b.s. about African Americans sticking together--should be ashamed of yourselves.

You're no better than the sexist men who have dumped on you throughout the years.

I have donated to NARAL throughout the years generously. Never bother me again-save your postage.
HOW DARE YOU SLAP SENATOR CLINTON IN THE FACE THE DAY AFTER HER STUNNING VICTORY IN WEST VIRGINIA!
STUPID,SHOCKING AND HORRIFIC DECISION.
Hillary truly still can win the nomination, but not when she is double-crossed by the very people she has supported.I vote "present" for NARAL, but my checkbook is closed forever...Really.

Thanks NARAL for having the courage to stand up and support Barack Obama. He will be the Democratic candidate this fall, and we all need to step up and unify behind him.

We've seen our liberties erode these past eight years. We've seen the worst president in the history of the United States preside over America with a right-wing agenda that is actively whittling away a woman's right to choice. We have another Republican candidate who wants to continue the agenda. McCain has stated he wants to appoint anti-choice judges like Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. All he needs is one more...

I must admit, I am rather confused by all the "outraged" comments. Some are so ridden with emotion, they're even refusing to donate to your organization. I'm sure the right-wing wackos will love it!

Again, thanks for doing the right thing. Don't worry, the dissenters will soon come back to their senses. Today, you've picked up a new NARAL supporter.

I can't say I've been a NARAL supporter for a long time; you obviously haven't missed my money anyway. But I was a member until 1992. That was the year that Pennsylvania NARAL decided to support Sen. Arlen Specter in his re-election campaign instead of his opponent Lynn Yeakel. Curiously enough, the reasons given were as follows: yes, Lynn Yeakel, like Sen. Specter, was pro-choice, but Sen. Specter had a long public record of supporting a woman's right to choose, so Pa. NARAL felt it would be "ungrateful" not to endorse him.

OK, fair enough, but I had done some research on Sen. Specter, and I found proof that he was not quite the champion of women's rights he had apparently convinced the leadership of Pa. NARAL he was. I went with my state representative, Babette Josephs, to a meeting with NARAL and presented my evidence. Our pleas were ignored. I decided then and there I had better places to spend my money. The national office of NARAL then made the decision to withhold endorsements in the Pa. race altogether, a completely chicken decision that gave Pa. NARAL political cover to endorse Specter, and that incidentally was a total slap in the face to Lynn Yeakel and the women in Pennsylvania who supported her candidacy.

Well, what a difference 16 years makes. Now, apparently, we are told by NARAL that it's OK after all to endorse the relative newcomer and to kick to the curb a woman who has devoted her entire life and career in public office to women's rights and to a woman's right to choose. Does anyone see a pattern here? Does anyone see that, in these apparently diametrically opposed rationalizations for these two endorsement decisions the one constant is that the woman candidate gets kneecapped by NARAL on behalf of a male candidate even when that candidate has a questionable record at best on women's issues, including choice? Some of us out here may, I believe, be forgiven for coming to the eminently rational conclusion that NARAL and its leadership are more interested in cozying up to the old boys' club that exists inside the Beltway than in really fighting for a woman's right to choose.

And please, spare me the comments about "broken hearts." You and others may not like the anger with which that remark was received by so many of the posters here, but there are times when anger is the only appropriate response to such outrageous and egregious behavior as NARAL has displayed, both in its endorsement and in the completely disingenuous comments its representatives have made to justify this reprehensible decision.

Why take side when you can wait a few days. No woman has gotten that far and you did not have the courtesy to give her the chance to show her greatness.
I can see Richardson motive but yours???

Hey! Thank you so much for posting this transcript and making available the whole multi-thread forum for discussion of the endorsement on the blog.

This experience of reading and commenting on the blog and talking about it offline has pushed on me to reflect again on the deeper levels of why I am pro-choice. It's been a while since I had the opportunity to do this in so vivid a manner.

In particular, I've been reminded of the underlying ethos of that stance for me -- that for me at its core, it's about having the choices available AND also about having real and consistently enacted respect for the actual intelligence, thoughtfulness and dignity of each woman making the choice(s) she makes.

Also, your chat answers were very useful for my understanding. I especially appreciated your clarity about how pro-choice does not automatically mean a preference for women candidates and your acknowlegement that other organizations have different missions. That clarity is crucial IMO and I thank you for making it so explicit in the chat. And, I didn't know about the Planned Parenthood of IL strategy but see in that another real-life example of a respectful person who will work collectively and respectfully with others toward a shared goal.

Overall: This "underlying ethos of real respect" thing is looming large for me right now at all sorts of levels. In reading, thinking and discussing the endorsement on your blog, I've learned something important (to me) about the deeper-level connections between my pro-choice stance and my support for Senator Obama. I value that learning a lot.

Finally: thank you again for endorsing Senator Obama and for standing so clearly and intelligently in your choice even as you opened up discussion for those who do not agree (or who, like me, are coming from sort of left field in our attention and focus).

I understand people were swayed, lets remember the woman in the third row right within camera range fainting...close so Obama could be seen trying to get her a drink of water....sounds like a revival meeting to me. Then there is MSNBC/GE and CNN most all cheerleaders for barack Obama....no one said anything nice about Hillary...it was all Hillary bashing all the way. Cafferty, Olbermann,Abrams, Matthews...all bashing her.This the same press that glorified Bush...and all right wing causes....and yet not even one mention of Downing St Memo..Think about it

I understand people were swayed, lets remember the woman in the third row right within camera range fainting...close so Obama could be seen trying to get her a drink of water....sounds like a revival meeting to me. Then there is MSNBC/GE and CNN most all cheerleaders for barack Obama....no one said anything nice about Hillary...it was all Hillary bashing all the way. Cafferty, Olbermann,Abrams, Matthews...all bashing her.This the same press that glorified Bush...and all right wing causes....and yet not even one mention of Downing St Memo..Think about it

Why all of this crying now. Where was all of the female support for Sen. Clinton at the beginning of the primary and caucus run.

Don't blame the media. Sen. Clinton is a smart media savvy woman, she had plenty of time, connections and influence to charm over the media. She and her campaign choose a stand off distance until she was in trouble. She knew her own negatives (triangulation and calculation) and had time to work on them and she didn't. The Iraq war vote and her refusal to apologize was killer.

She might be a great President but she has not run a great campaign. Reading here I get the sense that older professional women are very upset, but that vote was a lock. What did she do to win the young vote? The people she picked to run her campaign were out of touch. What effort was made to win the young female vote. None. That was arrogance. It was this arrogance that put her in the collapsing hole.

Stop beating up on NARAL. You that are complaining might do better to get behind McCain because he is going to need all the help he can get. But be prepared for the consequences of McBush. More War for your sons and daughters, 200 Billion a year flushed in Iraq, Roe V Wade turned back, no equal pay.

The Fighting Dems!

Obama 08

NARAL and Nancy. I'm ashamed of you, your board, your officers, and anyone else involved in this decision. I'm also furious that you have been so dense in your fast self-serving actions that are clearly motivated by your own personal choices. If you all don't understand the level of damage this inflicts to the 'place' of females here and globally, then you are all sleeping. If you do understand the damage you have caused, then this is all even worse.
This is just terrible.

This unbelievable hysteria and vindictiveness from so-called grownup women over losing a race that has been won fair and square by Senator Obama is perhaps the best evidence yet that this country is not ready for a woman in the White House. Her supporters would need to grow up first. You are reinforcing every negative stereotype about feminists.

Mike said: "Again, thanks for doing the right thing. Don't worry, the dissenters will soon come back to their senses. Today, you've picked up a new NARAL supporter."

Don't bet on it, Mr. Mike. We haven't lost our senses! In fact, I feel that we've finally gained our senses. No, the dissenters will not be back so take out your checkbook and write a big check to make up for the loss of revenue. Why should the dissenters stay with Naral when there are wonderful organizations like NOW and Emily's List that don't betray their friends. Obama will never, I said never, get my vote. I hope you understand that, Sweetie.

"This unbelievable hysteria and vindictiveness from so-called grownup women over losing a race that has been won fair and square by Senator Obama is perhaps the best evidence yet that this country is not ready for a woman in the White House. Her supporters would need to grow up first. You are reinforcing every negative stereotype about feminists."

Molly K: Hillary supporters represent 49% of the Democrats who voted (by the way, her voters voted in primaries where everyone got a chance, even single Moms who could not afford a babysitter while they spent hours at a caucus.) If you want your candidate to win, just keep insulting us. Grow up, yourself, and get that you need us if your man is to win the presidency. And at this rate and with unenlightened people like you and Naral, your man will not have much of a chance. In fact, there is a group of women who are organizing to actively oppose Obama because they do not like him, and they are not Republicans. So, again, you grow up! You wouldn't have the vote if it were not for those early feminists who did not worry about stereotypes! In fact, they were branded by persons just like you. Interesting that you can't seem to recognize that. Maybe you need to lose some of your rights so that you can understand the struggle to overcome sexism which has been rampant in this election. That is what we are angry about and to have Naral dish it out to a woman who has been one of their consistent supporters, that is an incredible betrayal. I expect it out of men like Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle and Bradley -- the four horsemen. Maybe Nancy can ride off into the sunset with them. It seems she already has!

I am referring to the following post with this reply;

You mean the gentle - "walk all over me and my Father" way that Jesus handled the traitors in the temple when Jesus yelled and overturned the tables? We are ALL sticking up for what is right. If you are not strong enough to hand with us - then that is your choice. But, "question" it is a NEW day for women as we are NOT going to take this anymore! And, I know that EVERYONE - the Democratic Party, NARAL, Obama, Oprah, the Obama supporters expect for us "little women" to give over our "temper tandtrum" and then get back to being who we are supposed to be and "turn the other cheek" and like a bad boyfriend or husband that we come crawling back to - here we are once again - ready to cook and clean and put out.

YOU JUST WATCH "question commenter" because something is different this time. We are all stronger and have more money and are independent. The days of having to go back and get back "in line" are over because now WE DON'T HAVE TO depend on others where we are forced into such a weak position!

The above post is in answer to the following;

By Question??? on May 16, 2008 11:55 PM
Fellow Clinton Supporters, are you a person of faith? Are you a practicing Christians/Catholic? I too am a HRC supporter but I am deeply troubled by the posts I have read here. Your attacks are brutal. Relentless.

"Judge not unless you be judged?"
"Love your neighbors as yourself?"
"Love them who use you?"
"Forgive seven x seven?"
"Put no other GOD before me?"
"Do not worship another?"
"You should not murder (even with WORDS)?"
"Do not bear FALSE witness?"

For those of you who are Christian - are you displaying the love of the God you serve? Are you making HIM happy with your actions, words, hate? Are you TRUSTING HIM? Or have you made this all about Hilary? I know you mean well. I realize you love Hilary. But can we support Hilary while not tearing others down? If we can't - what do we have?

Tammi wrote:

"Oh, now Obama started the negative attack??

WOW! I won't even comment on that. Any news media or video tapes or newsarticles can show you otherwise. So no need for me to answer that.

But what can we do to JOIN forces now? How can we resolve this?"

Tammi - WE ARE RESOLVING THIS. Just not in the way that you or the other Obama supporters, NARAL, and the Democratic Party want. You just wait and watch - we are stronger women, more independent women, and more financially secure women today than ever before and, we are NOT going to take it again!

Just what I like. An organization that openly admits kicking a person when she's down. What an inspiration of loyalty for all of us. But it's ok because it's all politics. Ironic, isn't it. Obama wants change but here's an organization that want to continue with politics.

Dear Obama supporters:

Please stop with the disingenuous "Oh Naral I'm so sorry the Clinton supporters are so mean" posts. They are patronizing and again, disingenuous.

I'd say the really vitriolic posts are about evenly divided, once you compensate for the far fewer posts in support of Obama. And they only reinforce the impression much of the country has of Obama supporters as supercilious and arrogant.

For those bantering on about 'choice', well, you're right. It's all about choice. And my choice is to put my reproductive rights support elsewhere.

One thing this country has been rather weak on for a long time is taking responsibility for one's actions. Well, Naral knew, or should have been able to guess, this decision would cost them support. So now they have to take responsibility for their actions. There it is, choice and responsibility. Stop talking about choice as if it only goes one way.

One other thing I've been thinking about is the argument that they are both '100%' in Narals ratings. Well, as far as I can tell, the ratings are based solely on legislative votes. They tell you nothing about intensity of support, the time and effort dedicated to reproductive rights, or commitment to the issue. For instance, I've voted Democratic in every Presidential election since I turned 18. I have a 100% voting record! But I don't give money to them, or volunteer for them, or involve myself with them in any other way. I have a good friend who does give them money and volunteer, a lot. She also has a 100% record voting for Democrats. We both have the same 100% record. And yet, if we both decided to run for office, which do you think the DNC would be better putting their resources behind?

One thing that's present in the Clinton supporter's posts is fairly extensive recounting of her long, hard work for pro-choice causes and organizations. But what's missing from the Obama posts is the same (and also missing from Naral's endorsement and the bit of the chat I saw before I logged off in annoyance at the weasly-PR-like responses they were giving).

If you really, really would like to persuade Clinton supporters to support Obama, you would highlight his actual accomplishments. NARAL is a cause-based organization. They should be making their decisions based on that cause.

By the way, this is an interesting article on the opinions of several prominent female politicians and some of the other pro-choice organizations to their endorsement:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080516/pl_politico/10408

here's some more info:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/15/134149/700/365/516289

I would like to ask my fellow sisters if anyone else has this feeling; when I listen to Obama speak - I get the same gut feeling I got when Bush was first running for the office. As though he does not have "much there" in regard to running the country?

For example; if I have heard him once I must have heard him a million times refer back to his experience as "when I was out on the streets of Chicago as an organizer."

I am from TX and I was working in Democratic politics in the early 1990's when the ENERGY & OIL TYCOONS were getting Bush groomed to run for Governor so he could run for President. I kid you not - he was their chosen puppet. No one believed us back then that there was a pipeline being planned in Irag at that time and Bush had been annointed by the oil companies to take the political lead - but, it is exactly what has happened.

What do we REALLY know about Obama. And, I certainly do NOT have a racist bone in my body. I worked with and admired Ron Brown and Barbara Jordan and SO MANY others. But, I am a little concerned about the 'coming out of no where' and not knowing anything about him - like Bush.

I don't want to say anything that is wrong here and I don't want to accuse anyone of anything but, for me - it just feels very familiar and that is worrying me.

Just wanted to see if anyone else had the same feeling or if they had any insight.

Because I have 4 grandchildren and I am VERY worried about the direction we are going in. That is why I truly believe that Hillary is the ONLY choice right now. And, for those that complain we would have Bill back. I don't get it - he was GREAT for this country. And, had he had more than 8-years - I truly believe that he would have done something about the mistake of NAFTA or at least been on top of knowing how to make the changes that needed to be made to make it work for all.

So, sometimes going backwards is not so bad. Like right now - I would take the 50's and the childhood I had then for my grandchildren NOW any day. Back THEN we did not have to worry about guns in school, our children riding their bike to the park, or how they were going to get an education, a house, and a job when they grew up.

Anyway, this is my 2-cents worth.

Thank you NARAL for having the courage to go with your conscience and endorse the candidate that you feel that is best to lead this country...Be it a man or woman. I know this must have been a tough decision for you to make and judging from the fallout of the last few days, I know the ground is shaky underneath your feet as you stand your ground...I am here to let you know that I stand with you and share your support for Sen. Obama....

I support Sen. Obama, not because of his race, but because I truly believe he is the only candidate that actually cares about the rights of all Americans, not just a certain group.

Sen. Clinton and her ilk have used divisive, race-baiting techniques that have drained and broken apart the spirit of this nation (not to mention the Democratic party)...While I definitely believe it is time for a woman president, I do not believe she is the one...

I have no problems with people who support Clinton or even McCain...After all, we all have different political beliefs and that's what makes this country great...However, I am saddened by so-called "progressive" feminists, who in their zeal to support their candidate choose to attack Sen. Obama due to his race. Do they not know that by this they are alienating a big chunk of their sisterhood? Many of us women are surprise...black as well...And when you insult Obama's race, you insult us as well. What gets me is that feminists will try to lure women of colour into the movement under the guise of some false sisterhood...But why should we join forces with a movement that flirts with white supremacy? *sighs* At least I know now where I stand with most feminists...

I am also amazed by the sentiment that many women on here share that if you vote for anyone other than the woman candidate, that makes you a traitor to womankind. Would I be a traitor to my race had I chosen a candidate other than Obama? No...And I have never heard such from any of my black brothers and sisters...

Thank you NARAL for attempting to bridge the gap amongst ALL women...But as you can see here it's not going to be easy...You've gained a new supporter here.

As a new voter, I am supporting Hillary Clinton because she inspires me! She inspires me because of what she has and continues to do in her life that benefits children, women, working people, and families. As a former breast cancer patient, her passion for universal health care is what matters to me. Too many women in this country die from breast cancer because they do not have insurance coverage. Senator Clinton is the one who got this country to start talking about universal health care and she is the only one with the passion and dedication to make it happen. If women have quality health care there will be less abortions. I am so disappointed in NARAL's support of Barack Obama as president at this time in the campaign. It won't make a difference in who wins the nomination - not at all. But what it has clearly done is upset NARAL supporters and that will eventually hurt women and girls. The explanation for the decision is hollow and does not hold with NARAL supporters who are passionate. The bloggers who are talking about the Christion values, the hateful talk, and making the anti-Clinton comments are clearly staged or paid. The passion of the disappointed NARAL members is genuine. When one is disappointed by something they believe in, it shows in their words and anger and emotion. That is real. The silly scoldings by the paid/staged bloggers is so truly not real.

This is in respone to Lady K's remarks.

NO ONE IS saying ANYTING about race! Quit playing the victim and quit accusing us of being racist. BECAUSE, WE FEMINIST, went where it was not safe or allowed for blacks (terrible terrible times - WE AGREE) to STAND UP for the rights of blacks and ALL people - Obama can run today.

So, quit with this entitlement and victimization talk and attitude. Quite frankly Lady K, this is what we have had to fight up against ALL the years we have been fighting for you - is that we were being suckered and that we were weak because your race "felt so entitiled". WHY are YOU trying to prove the REAL racists right at a time when you should be holding your head's proud and being appreciative to those that have helped bring you to the table - so-to-speak. But instead you call the Clintons OF ALL PEOPLE - racist.

THIS IS WHY you are not going to get the majority of the feminist vote. We do not like being walked all over and mistreated - just like you don't. So, if this tells you anything it should at least tell you one thing - WE ARE ALL EQUAL with the SAME HUMAN feelings that get hurt and offened. And, Ms. LADY K - I for one am GREATLY offended.

So, get back into the campaign and try to win honestly and not by payoffs and street money and church sermons that PUT US DOWN just because we are white.

This is so VERY ridiculous and so very hurtful and harmful. But, the feminists NOR did Geraldine Ferraro or the Clintons START this.
This - I guess - is the only way you know how to fight for something you want. And, I am here to tell you that it BACKFIRED on you. For the way that you have fought us - we will not back Obama. And, why should we???

Really really hurt and pissed off that I have to even discuss this subject after spending my entire life fighting AGAINST racism! Just sickening! What the hell are you thinking or doing??

I totally understand that everyone has their right to support a candidate in the upcoming Presidential election but I have to say that I find it so extremely difficult and so very disappointing that NARAL is endorsing a man who has absolutely no experience except the year and a half as a Senator. Senator Hillary Clinton has over two decades of experience, she has ALWAYS put the needs, care and concerns of woman and children in the front of her politicl career -- she is a woman who understands as only a woman can. I am so disgusted and disappointed in NARAL and I can no longer support or have faith in an organization that will turn their back on another woman who has supported and cared for WOMEN and CHILDREN. I have been a part of the Volunteers working to help Hillary and what I know about Obama scares me to death and this campaign is about my children and my grandchildren. God help America if Obama is elected. I guess people forgot about 911 -- Obamas supporters overseas are frightening and God help you....... There will be "change" no matter who becomes President but Hillary offers hope and experience. You have certainly lost any respect I had for your orginazation and that of many other people in this country, you have turned your back on a candidate who would help EVERY American........You turned your back on WOMEN !!

To the person responding to my comments:

You're right- My comments did backfire...Only because I expected tasteful discourse from decent, mentally sane people w/half a brainn...Unfortunately you possess none of these qualities...And ergo I am stuck w/replying to your infantile hyperbole...

I have not said that Obama (or any black American in general) were entitled to anything due to our race...If you're going to quote me, at least get the facts right...

And I could care less who you choose to support in the end...At the end of the day, whoever gets to be president, I am going to do what I need to do to get on with life...Unlike you, I am not going to shrivel up and die if my candidate of choice doesn't get into office...

Anywho:

As far as the racism in the feminist goes, you do not have to look hard to find it...Between the biased editorials and comments from the likes of Gloria Steinem, Roseanne Barr, Geraldine Ferraro, Marilyn Fitterman and most recently, Erica Jong (where she calls Obama a "boy")...In addition to Hillary Clinton last week's comments where she proudly boasts the support she is gaining amongst "Hard working Americans, white Americans"...

Not to mention the influx of comments in here full of loaded half-truths and from some of the posters here (one in which said that Obama did not represent America, but rather Africa). If Obama was a white man, would NARAL garner so much vitriol from the women here? I do not think so...

And Obama is able to run today, not because of anything white feminists had to do, but because of the bravery of black Americans who faced death and even worse to stand up for what is right and fair...When women were not granted the right to vote, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her sisters launched a zealously racist, classist and xenophobic campaign against non-white, non-American men...

You choose to be blind to the flaws in the feminist community because it serves your own purpose...And by your post, you're just looking to fight...I refuse to give you one. Have a nice life :)

Responding to Lady K- This quote in your response tells alot about your attitude towards African Americans; "So, quit with this entitlement and victimization talk and attitude." This concept of Black "victimization" and "entitlement" is such a Right Wing, Fox News Sean Hannity/John Bircher, White Resentment talking point it is sickening.

Sen. Clinton still has a great deal of high level Black political support. She had a significant level of common citizen Black support up until she decided to go negative against Barack Obama. My mother was a backer of Sen. Clinton, until she went negative.

The comments about MLK and LBJ were stretched out of context a bit, but Sen. Clinton's premise was that it takes a inside politician to get legislation thru, which is what she is, and that all Obama is about is dreams. That is insulting, and not just for the thin skinned. It diminishes the struggle of the common citizen, grass roots organizer (MLK or anyone) who wants to create change. It is saying that it is only up to the backroom deals of the politician. It was saying that the organizing Marches, rallies struggles didn't account for anything.

During the campaign in South Carolina, the Black vote was galvanized to Sen. Obama after the comments of the Clinton surrogates, particularly the mispeak of Pres. Clinton. He knew what he was doing when he said Jessie Jackson won So. Carolina, he was saying two things that it was not representative because it was a high black turnout, secondly that it was early in the run. The second point is fine, the first point is a bit of code for he can only win Black votes.

Likewise Sen. Clintons dismisal of Barack Obama as just a eloquent empty suit speaker/messenger was an attempt to marginalize the dream. Secondly he has policies and a record in State Legislature that he had to build himself. Everyone talks about where did this guy come from. Well he built himself into a top political figure. He didn't come from money or have the political pedigree that the Bush name or Clinton name gives you.

Why do you think he was chosen to give the speech at the last Democratic convention, because he was a loser. No it was because he was a star of the future.

Sen. Clinton while a courageous champion of women's rights has made some strategic political blunders in her quest to become President. Remember this isn't just about women's rights. Her war vote was wrong, and her vote for the new bankruptcy /credit card law was not progressive. Outside of Feminism she has trended fairly center right. Obama voted against the war and bankruptcy bill and trends moderate left. Now from what I read in you blog the right side is where you seem to be.

NARAL leadership made a choice because they know the math won't change and Hillary can't gain the necessary delegates. Rightfully you can complain that out of sisterhood respect they should have waited, but the hold of endorsement was not going to change the outcome.

Responding to Lady K - You need to deal with your "White Resentment" and understand that the Obama campaign and Sen. Clintons predicament are not the result of Black "Victimization and Entitlement" sentiment. Her poor campaign strategy, organization structure, policy positions and message are the cause for her not gaining the nomination and the NARAL endorsement.

If you feel so strongly about African American "Victimization and Entitlement" then you need to stick with the Republican party and vote for John McBush.

Black, white - that is NOT the issue here. The issue here is that some post-feminists here (i.e., NARAL's leadership and obviously a small percentage of their supporters) seem to think that being pro-choice has absolutely NOTHING to do whatsoever with supporting women beyond having the right to have an abortion.

In their naive line of thinking, we could have a government run by 100% MALES because all that matters is that these MALES are pro-choice.

Because that's what they are saying when they see no problem supporting the less qualified male candidate over the more qualified female candidate.

There is no analysis or recognition from the few Obama supporters here on the importance of having FEMALE REPRESENTATION in government. Yet, they'll blast you from here to Tuesday for your supposed "racism" if you are not for the black candidate.

How ironic.

The bottom line is this: You cannot successfully run an organization for women if you backstab women like Hillary Clinton. Sure, you may have a few naive women who think that it's not important to have women REPRESENTED in government, that having women in office doesn't SUPPORT our reproductive rights...but those women aren't the majority of pro-choice women.

So NARAL is setting itself up to be a marginalized, ineffective organization that won't have any more power because it has effectively wiped women out of the equation.

PS I think it's time for Nancy Keened to resign from NARAL...because, really...we don't need a WOMAN running NARAL for heavens's sake! So let's stop the sexism against men and find a less qualified man to be the president of NARAL...after all, all that matters is that he's voted pro-choice on a few occasions...

It is time for us, Sen. Clintons supporters to grow up and accept a defeat. Sen. Clinton should bow out with grace and class. If she belives that the pary is more important to her than herself, she should accept the inevitable and submit to the will of the people.
Why are we angry at NARAL for supporting Sen. Obama? The last time I checked he is one of the prime supporter of woman's choice.

God bless

UNITE, UNITE, UNITE!
Let us stop the madness and act like grown ups. It is noble to humbly accept defeat. Sen. has no one to blame but herself in loosing this primary. She lose a sizable lead, blew millions in misguided strategy to winning; underestimated her opponents, went negative against when she was down instead showing class and integrity. Should I go on? by the way she caught lying when she should not have to. Lets us not blame someone else for the mistakes of the flawed candidate and her arrogant husband who showed to be less than a states man.

You will never get another dine from me. The entire national board should resign.

After what you did to Clinton, I will never support you again.

The problem with you Obama supporters is your superior attitude. You are soooo much smarter than we are. I guess I should just put my five college degrees in the closet because clearly you are so much smarter than me. I have waited my entire life to see a woman run for President in this country. It may never happen again during my lifetime and I am sick to death of you people telling us to jump on your bandwagon. I won't be supporting Obama and I won't be supporting NARAL.

I wish I hadn't started reading this board it really saddens me. Crying feels in order. Too much hate. I'm not looking at the sorrow of whether there will ever be a female president, nor the sorrow of whether there will ever be another black contender. I'm looking at the sorrow of girls and women having children that they cannot take care of. Who will take care of these girls and women facing the life-changing experience of receiving or those not being able to access abortion treatment? I used to think apologizing for being a man was enough. I wish I believed in God so I could apologize for being human. We will let other people suffer because of our selfish desire to be right. So sad. NARAL I congratulate your courage to take a political stance. I will continue to fully support our cause and follow your endorsement while others slam your sincerity, as they no doubt, will mine.

Well, Michael, I feel like crying, because who will tell those young girls that they can't grow up to be president of the United States because first the media, and then the very women's organizations that are supposed to be supporting them, will THROW THEM ASIDE for a lesser qualified male candidate?

And still, I have YET to hear a cogent, thoughtful response from an Obama supporter as to why you honestly think it is more important for NARAL to support a male candidate than a female one, given that we need female representation in government to assure that government pays attention to women's issues.

You keep dismissing our outrage as hate. You have yet to respond sincerely to our concerns over having female representation in government. And yet you want us to UNITE behind you? Forget it.

Finally, Hillary has not lost. She leads in the popular vote and Democrats for Hillary are going to fight until the bitter end to have Florida and MI seated. This is not over, and Obama has not won. And we will not "unite" against Hillary, not now, not ever.

Michael, You are sincere, but don't seem to understand and are probably an Obama supporter. What we are angry about is the blatant sexism that has taken place throughout this campaign. Compared to racism, the sexism has been much more prevalent. Neither are acceptable. I am attaching an article by a woman who I think caught it all. I hope it helps to explain. We are sick and tired of the biased press and their biased pundits, MSNBC, CNN and even Tim Russert. They have been biased for Obama from the start. Why do you think Saturday Night Live did their famous skit? They saw it clearly. If young women do not understand the years and years of hard work that those of us who fought for women's rights did, then they need to wake up. Obama does not impress me as a great advocate of women's rights; I doubt he even thinks about it, except when he wants to get more votes or is concerned about his own daughters and wife. He even was willing to throw his grandmother who raised him and who made a comment (in confidence in a vulnerable moment) under the bus. And then there was his condescending "Sweetie" to a grown woman. Many seem to want to focus on Hillary's foibles, but Obama, on the other hand, can do no wrong. This feels to many of us like sexism and ageism! And I saw it from the start of this campaign.

But having said all of that, I doubt you will understand, but hopefully a little bit.

Here's the article about which I spoke:

Published on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 by TruthDig.com
A Farewell to the ‘Hillary Nutcracker’ and Other Obscenities
by Marie Cocco
As the Democratic nomination contest slouches toward a close, it’s time to take stock of what I will not miss.
I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan “Bros before Hos.” The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary Clinton (the Ho), and they are widely sold on the Internet.

I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs to reveal stainless steel thighs that, well, bust nuts. I won’t miss television and newspaper stories that make light of the novelty item.

I won’t miss episodes like the one in which the liberal radio personality Randi Rhodes called Clinton a “big f—in’ whore” and said the same about former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. Rhodes was appearing at an event sponsored by a San Francisco radio station, before an audience of appreciative Obama supporters-one of whom had promoted the evening on the presumptive Democratic nominee’s official campaign Web site.

I won’t miss Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone.

Political discourse will at last be free of jokes like this one, told last week by magician Penn Jillette on MSNBC: “Obama did great in February, and that’s because that was Black History Month. And now Hillary’s doing much better ’cause it’s White B—- Month, right?” Co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette.

I won’t miss political commentators (including National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger) who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie “Fatal Attraction.” In the iconic 1987 film, Close played an independent New York woman who has an affair with a married man played by Michael Douglas. When the liaison ends, the jilted woman becomes a deranged, knife-wielding stalker who terrorizes the man’s blissful suburban family. Message: Psychopathic home-wrecker, be gone.

The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a “she-devil” (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mockup of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she’s “looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court” (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).

But perhaps it is not wives who are so very problematic. Maybe it’s mothers. Because, after all, Clinton is more like “a scolding mother, talking down to a child” (Jack Cafferty on CNN).

When all other images fail, there is one other I will not miss. That is, the down-to-the-basics, simplest one: “White women are a problem, that’s — you know, we all live with that” (William Kristol of Fox News).

I won’t miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of influence on the course of the Democratic campaign. To hint that sexism might possibly have had a minimal role is to play that risible “gender card.”

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.
I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven’t uttered a word of public outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

Would the silence prevail if Obama’s likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they’d compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama’s sex organs play?

There are many reasons why Clinton is losing the nomination contest, some having to do with her strategic mistakes, others with the groundswell for “change.” But for all Clinton’s political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.

–Marie Cocco

© 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

Disgusting. You've lost my support, NARAL. Permanently. NOT ONE DIME, EVER EVER AGAIN. NEVER. Oh, and I'm a twenty-something feminist, so don't go making the assumption that it's only older women feminists who are outraged.

My partner and I are stunned that NARAL endorsed Sen. Obama. Both of us have been active on pro-choice issues for many years. Both of us spent 20 years in Washington, D.C. working on women's rights, including abortion/choice.

This is not simply a matter of "broken hearts", it is a political travesty for NARAL. The timing could not have been worse and I still wonder what the ultimate payoff is for this endorsement.

I know politics because I "played" it for 20 years in D.C. This act is beyond politics. Why could NARAL have not withheld this endorsement until the primaries were complete, or until there was an official nominee in August? It would have been so much stronger then.

To do this at this moment in time seems more an act of desperation than strength.

Sadly, it is because of this action that neither my partner nor I will support NARAL/Pro-Choice America nationally. We will continue to fight for abortion/choice rights, but the national organization does not speak for me or for us.

Sincerely,

Laura Walker & Anna Padia

I have to admit- I was very unhappy when I received a text fro NARAL that announced the support of Obama. While he did not have my support during the New Mexico primaries, he will have my support should be become the Democratic candidate.
However, I feel that the decision could have waited the three weeks. It was irresponsible to not throw in with a candidate from the start and more irresponsible to throw in for Obama (even if he is most definitely the likely candidate) without at least having the consideration to wait respectfully in regards to Clinton and her decades of efforts for pro-choice.
Also, I have to express some concern over those who have decided to discontinue their financial support of NARAL. These ex-supporters are upset that NARAL has abandoned Clinton, but now they are willing to abandon the cause of choice rights? I find this ironic.
As a young woman who has recently gained a position with NARAL as a campus coordinator... I am distressed over the possible back lash I will face this Fall semester. At the same time, I am excited about my position (though certainly not thrilled about NARAL's endorsement) and fully plan on hitting the floor running. Thanks to the feedback I've seen here I know where I need to start on my campus.
*creating funds, because apparently NARAL supporters are jumping ship (a disgrace, NARAL is a cause, not a club!)
*registering voters, and making sure they know where the candidates stand concerning reproductive rights (and in the case of those who are so upset over Clinton and may defect to McCain.... reminding them that it's not the face of a cause that matters, it's that it still exists to protect that counts)
* and MOST IMPORTANTLY- distributing condoms, information on BC and EC available on campus and in the community, and to make sure that every student, male, female, black, white, WHOANDWHATEVER.... knows that it is their individual right and responsibility to PROTECT REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS consistently, locally, nationally, globally and hold that right with the attention and respect that it deserves.

N.

Lady K, thank you for your comments! I agree.

You wrote: Do they not know that by this they are alienating a big chunk of their sisterhood? Many of us women are surprise...black as well...And when you insult Obama's race, you insult us as well. What gets me is that feminists will try to lure women of colour into the movement under the guise of some false sisterhood...But why should we join forces with a movement that flirts with white supremacy? *sighs* At least I know now where I stand with most feminists...

It is obvious to me (and many other people) from the histories and current struggles inside U.S. women's movements that white-oriented feminism here has a long history of white feminist racism/white supremacy. The patterns mutate and change in their specifics in some ways -- but that white feminist racism persists to this day in some wings of the movement. This is true.

Pretending it's not true or blaming the messenger (like you) won't make it magically disappear.

As your comments also point out, this is not only about the election.

And it's true that many feminist women of color have been bringing this problem of white feminist racism up over and over and over again for decades (actually more than a century now but seems like there's been a particular LOT of writing and open struggle in the past 30 years or so), asking that white feminists collectively look at this problem and try to change the situation.

This thing with Senator Clinton -- her particular uses of the category women and her increasingly explicit orientation toward white voters -- IMO is kind of riding on the coattails ot patterns already active within some white feminist contexts and histories. It's weird to me to see it coming up so large in national debates now, related to the election, because my experience has been that before it was mostly discussed within movement-oriented/activist circles.

I feel that it is really important for people focused primarily on the election to keep in mind that these patterns didn't just spring full-blown from the election cycle or from Senator Clinton or her surrogates.

These dynamics are part of deep and persistent problems in the women's movement in this country. Now, they are elevated to national prominence in terms of the election, but this stuff is not new for many of us who know from experience about the dynamics and struggles inside of white feminist contexts for decades now.

So, again, Lady K, thank you for your comments and for the still-crucial and still-necessary information you have shared here.

PS to my above comment: And on reflection, I wonder if the dynamics in/around Senator Clinton have sort of given permission for the more overt and hard-core dynamics of entrenched white feminist racism to get loudly voiced. Like now this is more "socially acceptable" or something like that.

Or maybe not -- I guess I'm just more used to the somewhat subtler forms of white feminist racism that I have seen more of in my experience, rather than this incredibly overt and "LA LA LA I'm NOT LISTENING!" type stuff. I mean to me, seeing this come out into the open, it's as if the last 30+ years of struggle within the parts of the women's movement I'm familiar with just -- never happened.

I don't quite know what to make of it, yet.

It is so sad that so many people have been mislead into believing that Senator Clinton still has a chance to win the nomination. That seems to be the crux of the issue here. Truly, if you believe that Senator Clinton still has a chance then you would be justifiably angry at NARAL's endorsement; but it's over. John Edwards dropped out of the race after seven primaries... I suppose he still could have won the nomination . John McCain clinched the Republican nomination with more than 30 Republican primaries to go. I don't hear people whining that those 30 states were "disenfranchised." That's the process. When a winner emerges, it's over. Done. Finito. Toast. NARAL saw that Obama will be the nominee and decided to focus on beating McCain. That makes perfect sense. I would have preferred Senator Clinton, but that's reality.

Frederick Douglass stabbed Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the heart long before she broke with him. He threw all women under the bus, not just white women. ECS wanted them all to fight together for a comprehensive amendment and he refused. So that angry argument won't hunt.

Clinton said, about MLK and LBJ, that it takes both the dream and the gritty politician. The fact that some took this to be racist is race-baiting.

The anger at NARAL is because a strong, proven, FEMALE champion of women's rights has be so disrespected. This endorsement could have waited. HRC deserves that much. Ask all the women around the world who still, to this day, remember her speech in China.

Not everything is about racism. Our dream of having a woman president is just as real and valid as the dream of the 90% of AA who voted for BO. The MSM used sexism against HRC because it was a convenient weapon to get at someone they hate for other reasons.

The feminist anger is that the DNC and other leaders, including the so-called New Man himself, did nothing to stand up and try to stop it.

Kyl Joi,

I am sorry that you don't understand, but I will try to help you. If you had grown up in the 50's, you would not have been offered that job. In fact, most jobs would not have been available to you. Sad, but true. If you did decide to have a career, it would have been limited to a few time-honored and important professions that were available to women. And, if you did work, you would have to live near your parents (not a bad idea, but limiting) in order to have your children carried for while you were working because there was little or no affordable child care available. It's been years of hard work and dedication that brought women to where we are now and there is still more to be done. So, you see, when Naral bypasses a woman who spent the years in the trenches in this struggle for equity for all women, not just white women, then many of us are terribly offended. Myself, I am considering voting for Cynthia McKinney, a former congresswomen and candidate for the Green Party. You may say that I am throwing my vote away. No, I am tired of holding my nose and voting!

I wish you much good fortune on your new job!

WRITE IN HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT!!! IT IS TIME TO TAKE MATTERS IN OUR OWN HANDS-WRITE HER IN FOR PRESIDENT NOVEMBER 2008. THE GOOD OLD BOY NETWORK AND GOOD OLD GIRL NETWORK WHO SUPPORT THE GOOD OLD BOY NETWORK CAN BE IGNORED GOING FORWARD. WRITE IN HILLARY!!! THAT IS ALL WE NEED TO DO. WOMEN AND UNDERSTANDING PRO-CHOICE MEN-WRITE HER IN.

This is in response to B. Meredith's post of May 17, 2008, 11:57 AM.

The repetition of the completely historically false canard that Sen. Clinton's comment about MLK and LBJ proves she is "racist" proves only one thing to this 64-year-old woman: you are pitifully ignorant of the history of the civil rights movement, which I lived through. I don't know how old you are, but I'm guessing you may not even have been alive when these events took place. But I was.

So get a clue, as you kids like to say. Not only is it totally accurate that it took a president to get the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed, it is also a matter of record that Lyndon Johnson said at the time that the Democratic Party would lose the South for a generation, but that he would work for passage of these acts despite that fact because it was the right thing to do. He was right; Democratic support of the civil rights legislation opened the door for Richard Nixon to implement his "Southern strategy," in which he picked up all the white racists for the Republican Party. The Republican stranglehold on the states of the Old Confederacy was not broken until first Jimmy Carter, and then more resoundingly, Bill Clinton, were able to persuade white Southerners that their economic interests would best be served by a Democratic administration. And just for the record, Bill Clinton's administration was the most diverse ever seen in this country, by both race and gender.

As for those who argue here that women should not support women, even women who stand up for women's rights as strongly as Sen. Clinton has done, please explain to me why, then, African-Americans should support Sen. Obama by over 90%. You cannot argue, either in fairness or logic, that it is OK for African-Americans to do so, then turn around and tell women that they should not give similar support to a woman candidate. Rationalizing your illogical position by raising false accusations of racism against a woman who, alongside her husband, has fought all her life for human rights is worse than disingenuous; it is evil and flies in the face of the very "unity" Sen. Obama claims to advocate.

To Hilary Above:

We are truly trying to understand the anger/rage or pain you feel. But what I hear most of you saying is - because Sen Clinton may not (??) become the nominee - that makes Obama hated, sexist along with all of his supporters too.

As a woman myself, that just doesn't make alot of sense to me at all. If BO does not get the nomination - should ever black person in America stand up and declare racism and beat down HRC and everyone who supports her? Then refuse to vote - or vote for McCain? How sound is that?

But that is exactly what you guys are doing. You are taking all your anger out on everyone who supports Obama. You want to punish Obama because he's a MAN. You want to make sure Obama doesn't win - but will try your best to make sure ANOTHER 'MAN' wins instead. I just don't get the logic. I can understand the disappointment, but to hate Obama and every supporter of his...is just too much to be able to agree with.

Okay, Valhalla - if you have voiced your opinion and do not want to support NARAL anymore; then move on. You've made your choice, they've made theirs. So why do you guys continue coming here and trying to tear down an organization you said you believed in? Leave. Walk away. That's your choice. But to badger them day after day - relentlessly, is unnecessary, childish. Go do what you said you're going to do.

If Obama supporters are arrogant - what are Hilary supporters?

As a lawyer, I'm quite aware of how a direct riversal of Roe v. Wade could endanger women's rights well beyond reproductive issues, and have donated to NARAL for a number of years.

Earlier this year, however, I had begun sadly to conclude that NARAL was as lost in the fogs of the past as NOW, and was thinking about ceasing my support.

This one move redeems you.

A lot of the comments on this page are truly pitiful. They represent the perspective that I saw losing the battle even before this presidential campaign.

You really think you will get the Supreme Court justices we need by these actions? You think we will beat back state law and constitutional initiatives by inisisting that most everyone else is wrong?

Thank you, Nancy, for taking leave of that tired bitter screed.

Oh the backlash is just starting. I am a Hillary supporter that was pissed off even more by NARAL. If Hillary does not get the nomination then I will not just vote for McCain, I will be donating and campaigning for him hard, I have already started doing that. I have already sent thousands of e-mails to friends, family and co-workers. I have made calls and voiced my oppinion to all and I have my reasons clear. I will do everything I can to defeat Obama in the fall. Please don't tell me that Hillary supporters will go willingly to Obama, that is such a lie, this is not a typical election and we will not let this happen. We will join together to defeat Obama this fall and then Hillary can come back in 2012 and we will make it right then. I use to be a contributor and huge supporter of NARAL but no more. Never, forget it no way oh I am even madder than I was before. NARAL has deffinately made up my mine now. Thank you NARAL.

"PS to my above comment: And on reflection, I wonder if the dynamics in/around Senator Clinton have sort of given permission for the more overt and hard-core dynamics of entrenched white feminist racism to get loudly voiced. Like now this is more "socially acceptable" or something like that."

Michelle, once again...more grad school speak without much substance. By saying this, you are suggesting that black people must, by default, support Obama...going against the very "freedom to choose a candidate" that rankles you when women say we should support Clinton because she's a woman.

And yes, just like you don't support Clinton, quite a few black people have been vocal in their opposition to Obama. If you read the blogs, you'll see blacks speaking out against Obama - not just whites. The two women who appeared on FOX News about the Obama boycott were NOT white women. One was black. You can find the clip on my blog. One of my friends, a black man with a white mother, was the first to tell me how Obama was imploding, and he's no Obama fan either.

So you can't out of one side of your mouth chide NARAL members for being upset over the Obama endorsement, saying that it's perfectly OK for a women's organization to not support a woman candidate, and then on the other side of your mouth presume that women insult all blacks by rejecting Obama, as if ALL BLACKS were behind him.

You can't have it both ways.

To Ninjalibrarian: You either misquoted or misread what I said. Here it is - "Sen. Clinton still has a great deal of high level Black political support. She had a significant level of common citizen Black support up until she decided to go negative against Barack Obama. My mother was a backer of Sen. Clinton, until she went negative.

The comments about MLK and LBJ were stretched out of context a bit, but Sen. Clinton's premise was that it takes a inside politician to get legislation thru, which is what she is, and that all Obama is about is dreams. That is insulting, and not just for the thin skinned. It diminishes the struggle of the common citizen, grass roots organizer (MLK or anyone) who wants to create change. It is saying that it is only up to the backroom deals of the politician. It was saying that the organizing Marches, rallies struggles didn't account for anything.

During the campaign in South Carolina, the Black vote was galvanized to Sen. Obama after the comments of the Clinton surrogates, particularly the mispeak of Pres. Clinton. He knew what he was doing when he said Jessie Jackson won So. Carolina, he was saying two things that it was not representative because it was a high black turnout, secondly that it was early in the run. The second point is fine, the first point is a bit of code for he can only win Black votes."

Is there anything there that says Sen. Clinton is racist? NO! I didn't say she was racist, nor do most African Americans believe she is racist. They do object to the negative tone and tack Sen. Clinton took and the feeling that coded comments were unnecessary and undignified. You can check Black Blogs like Jack & Jill.com

Further you are correct I was born in the 60's so I was a child, but my mother lived thru it and went on the Marches. The premise the Clinton espoused was that the "Dreamer" was not as significant as the Pragmatic Politician. Now I know a huge credit goes to LBJ to push through the Civil Rights & Voting Rights Legislation. He did so at great risk.

If you look back at this campaigns news reports you will notice how Sen. Clinton back pedaled a bit, because she realized the tone and emphasis of the politician really diminished the grass roots struggle. You will remember she was touting her "ready on day one" or "Change you can count on or believe in" mantra, basically highlighting that she was through the trenches politician who knew how to get things done.

Now I am not pitiful and this is not a canard as you say. Regardless Sen. Clinton still didn't lock up 60-70% of women, there is a reason for that. Yes African Americans have lined behind Sen. Obama in record numbers since So. Carolina, but we have been voting for White Presidential candidates since 1867. I don't see where you are going making this a question of race or gender. Senator Clinton enjoyed a size able African American votes up until So. Carolina. She still enjoys a big African American political contingent supporting her. So this ain't abour race.
As far as women supporting women, frankly I am surprised at the fact that Sen. Clinton didn't get more support in the voting booth or in funds from women.

KMR - If McCain is your man then go enjoy him. If you think however that Sen. Clinton has a remote chance in 2012 if Sen. Obama loses you have lost your frigging mind. Especially if the post mortem shows feminist anti-Obama backlash.

Check this article out Hillary supporters -
http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=f7a4a380-c4a4-4f84-b653-f252e8569915

I have more to say about the Feminist / Racial mix, as I have spoken with my mother about that, but that is a whole nother day.

Needless to say if the dems are going to win this Clinton / Obama strife has got to be put down.

The Fighting Dems

Obama 08

"As a woman myself, that just doesn't make alot of sense to me at all. If BO does not get the nomination - should ever black person in America stand up and declare racism and beat down HRC and everyone who supports her? Then refuse to vote - or vote for McCain? How sound is that?"

I would absolutely understand if black Obama supporters Obama got upset and pissed off if Obama did not get the nomination. They, like us women, want a candidate that represents them.

"But that is exactly what you guys are doing. You are taking all your anger out on everyone who supports Obama. You want to punish Obama because he's a MAN."

You don't get it. First off, we're not punishing Obama. We're punishing the Democratic party, and in particular the leadership, for allowing the horrible treatment of Hillary to go on for so long without sticking up for her. (I.e., the sexism in the media.)

When we take our money away from NARAL, we are punishing NARAL for what we perceive was an ill-timed and insulting endorsement. It has nothing to do with Obama himself per se.

Secondly, we do not support Obama not because he is a man, but because he is a corrupt, inexperienced, hypocritical man. Not to mention arrogant as all get out.

I've done my homework on Obama and even without the poor treatment of Hillary I'd honestly be hard-pressed to vote for him in November. I think he is THAT bad, and THAT awful. I think his connections with Rezko are clear and damning. I do not think Obama can win, and I know he won't. I think it is political suicide for the Democrats to nominate him for this and other reasons.

And I'm very sorry that I cannot support the black candidate, as an affirmative action statement, because I'd like to. I'd like to see more than white males in the White House. But not Obama. Sorry.

And that has everything to do with Obama's weakness as a candidate, and nothing to do with his gender or race.

Nancy

"You want to make sure Obama doesn't win - but will try your best to make sure ANOTHER 'MAN' wins..."

I fully agree. My personal pledge is that I will never vote for another man for anything until my party stands up against sexism the same way they have stood up to racism.

Meredith

"coded comments were unnecessary and undignified" but you are not calling her a racists? "Coded comments" is code for "she's a racist" and everyone including Donna B. knows it.

"...but we have been voting for White Presidential candidates since 1867. I don't see where you are going making this a question of race or gender." What? We have been voting for men since the beginning of recorded history! To say that this is not a matter of race or gender... WHAT? The percentage of this and that prove that these things are THE issues. Look at all the blogs and what is being talked about.

I thought we were opening up the big discussion about race that we've never had. Never mind that I feel like I've been having this discussion for 60 years, OK, let's have the discussion. The reason the AAs came out for BO more strongly after SC was because the BO surrogates called the Clinton's racist! "Coded comments" is code for "Racist!"

"As far as women supporting women, frankly I am surprised at the fact that Sen. Clinton didn't get more support in the voting booth or in funds from women." We are saying we vote for HRC not because she is a woman but because we are. That doesn't mean all women feel that way. Fact: 90% of AA vote for BO. What does that tell you? Facts are nothing; you and I put the meaning to them.

Here's what I have seen and heard from friends: the racism is local, meaning not allowed on TV, and more hidden -- but when revealed on TV it is called for what it is. Racism is unacceptable to the point that one cannot say the words "black" or "white" without being called racist. Rampant sexism is open and left unchallenged on TV and on the blogs. It is poo-poo'd by everyone and pretty much considered not something to get so worked up about. "Sweetie" ain't so bad but god forbid anyone ever called a black man "boy" -- the sky would fall down.

This disparity is what women are so angry about. Take it out on BO? Sure, many women will. There are plenty of instances where BO has been caught with his sexsim in full view. But if the DNC appears to be pushing BO over HRC in such a tight race, and they are, and they say NOTHING about sexism, which they have not, then you tell me if the connection is that far off. I will never forget the so-called undeclared Donna B declaring about 4 MONTHS ago that "If THEY steal this nomination from US, I will leave this party." You tell me.

the only "pro-choice" i will make is to donate to Emily;s List. This will be in thanks for "Emily's" trashing of NARAL.

go Emily's list , and thanks naral for giving them a boost.

Revenge is so sweet. Every time the Republicans "swift boat" Obama for the rest of the year, I will be smiling. Every time you Obama supporters whine about those "mean Republicans", I will laugh. When I walk into the voting booth in November and pull the lever for McCain, I will be smiling. Nobody deserves to lose more than you Obama supporters. NARAL can kiss off my support.

This is the most embarrassing endorsement I can remember, and I've been following presidential politics since 1952. What the heck were you people thinking? You toss a woman who's worked on your issues for decades under a bus to endorse a guy who calls you "Sweetie"? You're treating a major endorsement as if it's accepting a date from the cute new guy down the block? And you time it to step on her 40+ point win in a primary? (Please don't insult our intelligence by saying that wasn't coordinated with the Obama campaign.) You ought to be ashamed of yourselves, really you ought.

That chat was the most condescending thing I've read in a long time. You guys must enjoy losing members.

HOB: your comments continue to display a form of feminism that is very ugly to me.

If what I wrote had "not much substance," then you would not have felt compelled to incorrectly re-define it so strongly (and your logic is wrong because you are not bothering to try to understand) -- and then actively defend your views in a 3-paragraph comment as you did.

Actions speak. Yours say that my supposed "not much substance" had some sort of real substance that threatened assumptions you hold as important.

The "not much substance comment" is not actually a description you are offering. Instead, it's yet another part of the pattern of persistent disrespect (disagreement is different from disrespect BTW) your comments on this blog show toward other women's actual perspectives in these discussions whenever those perspectives differ from yours.

In my case, to use the most obvious examples, you told me in the previous thread that the reason I don't understand the world your way is not because we disagree, but because I am swimming in a toxic sea of misogyny but do not see it (you do of course -- in your view you're the one who knows best how to understand my experience!). You later told me that if I do not understand and do women's movement activism exactly as you do, then I should get out of the movement and am not really part of it anyway.

Your actions speak a lot about your kind of feminism, HOB. Your persistent pattern of disrespect for other women who don't see things like you do and whose lived experience base is not the same as yours -- speaks very loud. You are showing in your actions here how you understand feminism. You are showing that in your feminism, disrespecting (not disagreeing with, but disrespecting) other women is perfectly acceptable when other women do not agree with you or fit your definitions.

Actions speak.

Nancy K. responded to the controversy surrounding her endorsement by saying people will get over their "broken hearts". wow. Never another dime.

October, 2007: "The default candidate for Democrats in this race was always going to be Hillary Clinton because she's Hillary Clinton as opposed to Hillary Rodham." -Obama

February '08: "You challenge the status quo, and suddenly the claws come out" -Barack Obama to a crowd at Tulane University.

February '08: "When Sen. Clinton is feeling down she launches attacks" - Barack "Sweetie" Obama.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic of Naral to endorse this tool 3 weeks before the end of a 6 month primary when Sen. Clinton's history of fighting women's healthcare, rights and reproductive freedoms is so much vast than his.

Michelle,

You are NOT making comments in this blog because YOU CARE or because you EVER wanted or were a part of the women's movement. For you to say that the women's movement is "white supremacy" and that we have falsely lured you and others of colour in - YOU ARE HIGH. And, to say in your last post that you just don't understand?

Sit down and shut up.
The promotion is going to the young man even though you have worked here for 20-years because he has a family to take care of. (Oh, by the way train him and do it with a smile on your face).
Fuck your boss or lose your job.
Youth over experience is what we have decided to go with - but, thank you for coming in to apply.
Could you get me a cup of coffee, sweetie?
This is an all men's club. You are not allowed.
The young - skinny girl gets the interview.
Only boys are allowed to be born.
60 Cents on the dollar that a man is paid.
Stoned to death for A MAN raping you.
Women are not allowed to vote.
The country is not ready for a female in the military on the frontlines.
The country is not ready for a female astronaut.
Women are not as smart as men in science and math.
The country is not ready for a female anchor woman.
The country is not ready for a female President.
He is tough and she is a bitch.
He is agressive and she is pushy.
He is determined and she is in denial.
He never gives up and she is crazy.
He hits
He rapes
He does not pay his child support
You are pregnant - he leaves you - you have no money and so sick you can't work. If you stay pregnant you can't pay the bills and keep a roof over your other kids' heads or food on the table for them. Abortion is not legal so a fellow sister - (of ANY race) has helped you find a back alley doctor to go see. She paid for it and held your hand through it because THE FATHER was no where to be found.
You worked to put your husband through college, then you stayed home to have kids and socially help your husband build his career in the community. When he finally started making money - he left you for the secretary and you had no education, no job, and a mortgage to pay and kids to raise with no income. The bastard and his young new wife - took your children from you because he had the money for the high-powered attorney to fight you for cutody and win.
Your female friends took you in and helped you out.
You are a high-profile morning co-host of a news program. You got to old and lost your job.
Older women are fat and disgusting laughs the group of men teeing off with pot bellies and balding.
Sports is more important for the boys. (They get all the scholarships)
You can't purchase this house without your husband signing for you.

But, I guess this is ONLY a white-woman problem and that no other race has men that treat them like this.

So, if you choose to seperate YOURself from the sisterhood of feminism due to your race then that is YOUR choice because as far as feminist are concerned - we don't see color as being the challenge that we are working to overcome in this movement. Stupid us - we thought no woman was immune to what we have and are experiencing from sexism.

Linda

search "Hillary clinton we've come a long way baby" on you tube. to hear her wonderful speech made in 1995 for the U.N. about womens rights being human rights. Or click on my name.

Michelle, where is it written in the "Feminist Code of Honor" that I must "respect" another woman by default over her gender? Once again, you want to have it both ways.

First, you say we should not be forced to vote for the woman candidate just because she's a woman. Then, you say we should be forced to "respect" another woman, even if we feel that other woman is a traitor to our cause.

Then, you claim that through my "actions" I am disrespectful of you and therefore not a feminist.

I'm just more blunt than you. But you aren't being any more respectful. You just use a lot of intellectualized "been too long in academia" type rhetoric to slam anyone who supports Hillary as a white feminist oppressor and racist. THAT is insulting. THAT is totally lacking in disrespect.

But just because you write your insult under an intellectual guise, as if it was some sort of thesis, it does not mean you are more respectful than I am. Get over yourself.

Bottom line: You don't have my respect because you use double talk to try to silence other women here. NARAL lost my respect due to their actions.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, continually earns my respect through her dedication, her persistence, and her consistent positive attitude in the face of all odds. Too bad NARAL couldn't respect her as well.

But don't give me this crap that you somehow "respect" Hillary or her supporters. With your insinuations and accusations of white feminist racism against women of color, you are being 100%, totally disrespectful.

You create division in these statements, by implying that there's a white sisterhood and a black sisterhood and that the two can't meet. That is just beyond sad...and not true.

I posted the wrong email address.

HERE IT IS:
hrcrunind@yahoo.com

Thank you for endorsing Obama. You've made it easier for the "Values" voters to cast their votes for McCain in the fall, and given the RNC a head start.

I will never give another dime to your organization. You are the most short sighted organization. You could have EASILY waited 3 MORE weeks before you threw your support toward Obama. How dare you after Hillary was help your very very creation. I hope all that made this decision for NARAL are fired or forced out from shame. Now with all the backlash, it will likely NOT be somewhere in Obama's adminstration like you thought. If he does offer you something in his administration, I expect you'll see NO support there as well from Hillary supporters. Good luck on your future. You make me sick.

As a NARAL member, and the proud son of a mother who took every opportunity to defy the nay-sayers and do the things that only men were allowed to do, I not only will continue to support NARAL, but I will match every dollar I've given to Barak Obama so far with a dollar to NARAL.

You have made a courageous choice. At a time when the candidate has been stubbornly hoping that people will give her campaign money so that the campaign can give the money back to her, we need to recognize that Hillary no longer has the needs of the Democratic party or the ProChoice movement at heart. She is running to raise funds to pay back loans... loans not made by banks but by Hillary herself.

Bill's presidency was not great for women's rights, but it wasn't terrible. Hillary would have been a very weak president, with a razor-thin support base. That would have made it impossible for her to do anything that we NEED done, like revive the ERA, secure Roe-v-Wade into law, and truly defend attacks on the rights of women to a fair shot, and even playing field.

Barak has created a new coalition, one that not only brings millions of new voters into the party, but one that will be strong enough to do the things we need done.

It is painful to lose our best shot to elect a woman SO FAR, but there will be more elections, more opportunites, and perhaps, next time, we will get a woman in the Oval Office. For now, let's focus on what matters: defending Roe-v-Wade. The next supreme court will overturn it if McCain wins. Let there be no doubt.

We must win this one.

Go Barak. Thank you Naral.

Nick writes;
"You have made a courageous choice."

I am sure you will find this a suprise - HE is an Obama supporter. Or should I say another man paid by Obama to invade this blog

JSF - Sen. Clinton made a decision to put that coded conversation out there. You called it Racist I didn't. She is a very intelligent person, so she understood the implications of the comments made in So. Carolina.

MJ - You can try your Troll stuff over at TownHall. All the wise NARAL supporters or ex-supporters know that McCain is a poor option.

Again for you ex-NARAL supporters, Feminists, any planned or actionable Anti-Obama, anti-Democratic backlash will not bode well for your future political viability. The post mortems will reveal all, and yes Obama might lose, but the chance for a Female in the White house in your lifetime will all sink also.

HOB (Hillary or Bust on May 18, 2008 7:24 PM) -- I recognize that you and any other supporters of Senator Clinton who identify as feminist really are feminist. I don't feel there is any sort of universal feminist code of interaction (what you called "Feminist Code of Honor") that you have violated and/or should be forced into. And there is no "therefore you are not a feminist" in where I am coming from.

My perspective is rooted in the particular feminism I come from, which in my view is not the only feminism there is.

My first intense experience working with feminist groups/movements was in the late 1980s, my late teens. I had been politically active in other contexts, but this was my entry into sustained feminist work with feminist groups.

Most of what I was doing at that point was concentrated in two contexts: doing crisis-line and statewide policy work with a local women's organization/shelter for survivors of rape and "domestic" violence in rural southern Virginia, and also being a participant and organizer -- via a small campus NOW chapter -- in pro-choice work (on campus and connecting with the larger movement for stuff like marching and lobbying in D.C.)

The shelter staff were working from a "peer" model for the crisis line. Their training emphasized that we should always act from a basic respect for the intelligence and humanity of the women calling in.

They told us volunteers that we should not assume that we were more enlightened or better than the callers, that we all have to deal with patriarchy in our lives in particular ways, and that the caller -- not the crisis line volunteer -- was the expert in her own life. We were not to make objects of the women who called, not to treat them as objectified "battered women" who were somehow damaged where we were whole.

This approach made a whole whole lot of sense to me. It rooted feminism in my lived experience and that of other women around me, including but not limited to the women who called in and stayed in the shelter.

The shelter staff's approach was explicitly and unapologetically feminist, which I later learned was not necessarily the norm for shelters by the late 1980s. And this particular feminist approach emphasized that we are all in it together as peers, not expert/object.

So I was working with the shelter and also doing the pro-choice organizing at the same time in a pretty visible and vocal way. And during this time, my younger sister got pregnant. She did not want to have an abortion; she told me and others and was very clear about it. But my parents decided that they would try to coerce her into having an abortion anyway. They called me and asked me to help them coerce her into this.

I refused. They were shocked: "But there you are doing all that pro-choice work! You of all people should be interested in helping us get her to have an abortion." I told them that pro-choice meant pro-CHOICE to me and that it was absolutely against my feminist pro-choice commitments for me to try to coerce another woman into doing something with her body that she did not want to do.

A year or so later I had moved across the country and got involved in organizing a coalition for prevention of violence against women. My "home" organization in that coalition was a Latina-run group that had to become its own 501c3 because the white-run "domestic violence" organization had responded to reduced funding by deciding to close their satellite office in the part of the county that was predominantly Latino/a.

I sat through meeting after meeting, was at event after event, watching white feminists from that organization and its allies casually and persistently disrespect the intelligence, skills and actual feminism of their Latina counterparts. This was just the first in many many MANY situations over many many years in which persistent and institutionalized white feminist disrespect for and marginalization of women of color -- forms of white feminist racism -- were sharply in my face.

The coalition itself was Latinas and white women working for various organizations in heavily Lartino/a side of the county. I didn't really know how to organize a coalition, but I kind of learned as I went. Basic respect for different feminisms was really important, as was lots and lots of listening to the members.

So HOB -- I wrote that your feminism is ugly to me. Because basic enacted respect between women, in all our complexity, as peers (not one-up, one-down or expert/object) is a such core part of what feminism and women's movement activism is and has always been for me. It is not all of it, but it is a key part of my foundation.

And, HOB, I wrote about white feminist racism. This is not an insult. It is a lived and observed truth about difficulties and struggles in actual women's movements I have been involved with. It comes also listening to, talking with and reading from others who have also seen and experienced these patterns in their own actual lived experiences.

I recognize that where I'm coming from is not where you're coming from and not where some of the other commenters here are coming from. We disagree, and very sharply. For me, disagreement with other women does not have to mean erasure, dehumanization or disrespect (eg "you're not part of the movement if you don't agree with me so get out!" or "your experience and perspective isn't like mine so it's not really from experience but rather substance-less, meaningless, new age, academic," or "you are a traitor to the cause" etc).

But I don't own feminism. It is not my place to tell you or anyone that you are or aren't feminist. And as far as I'm concerned, there no universal code of interaction among all feminists.

But I do in fact find your feminism ugly. From the core of my own experience, that's where I am on it. There are different feminisms and some, like yours and mine, sharply conflict.

Thank YOU, Michelle and B. Meredith for putting it out there...Unfortunately, your words have fallen on deaf ears because THEY DO NOT GET IT! Nor will they ever...

The same people who have chosen to ignore the loaded overt racism that has been prominent throughout HRC's campaign are the same bunch who continued to harp on the "sweetie" incident...While BO has apologised to the woman personally, HRC and her supporters refuse to see why & how many people can construe their actions as racist and divisive...This is bothersome.

To JSF:

"The representative women of the nation have done their uttermost for the last thirty years to secure freedom for the negro, and so long as he was lowest in the scale of being we were allowed to press his claims; but now, as the celestial gate to civil rights is slowly moving on its hinges, it becomes a serious question whether we had better stand aside and see 'Sambo' walk into the kingdom first."

--Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1865.

You either have these feelings in your soul from the first or you don't...Being "stabbed in the heart" does not justify nor bring out these sort of beliefs...She had them in her all along.

Good points Michelle. For a long time there's been discussion about the internal fragmentation of feminism along racial lines. I don't know if that is what this is about really.

But I think you are right on about how people not agreeing with NARAL or Hillary or her supporters are someone traitors. This reminds me of the Republican Party's Tom Delay "RHINO hunts"(Republican in Name Only) - they purged their party of moderate Republicans in primaries.

The result is the extremely out of touch, hyper-conservative Republican party that lost big in 2006 and is about loose even bigger this year.

Do we want to follow Tom Delay's lead and wipe out the diversity of our movement? Do we want to tar any Obama supporter (of which I am one) as a traitor - even in spite my years of dedication to our movement? If I am a "traitor" then what will you call yourselves when you their try to run a spoiler or vote yourselves the great feminist John McCain? Marching down this road will we suffer the same result as the RHINO hunting Republicans?

Hey I know this is hard for everyone. I’m not only seeing my candidate getting trashed, but my party and feminist family getting pulled apart. We can’t let this happen, and it’s within our power to not make this happen.

The only hesitancy I had about supporting Senator McCain...was judges. However, if NARAL can decide to endorse an unknown man over a woman who has supported the cause for 35 years...it is every woman for herself.

I continue to be both disappointed in and surprised by the harsh, nasty, and abusive stand that the "Clintonistas" are taking regarding the obvious overwhelming choice of the American people for a bright, fresh candiate with integrity and honesty.

I was delighted to hear of the NARAL endorsement of Senator Obama. I have been a supporter of NARAL for many years now. I am appalled that so many women think that we MUST vote for a woman strictly because of her gender! I would love to see a woman in the White House someday, but that woman must fit many other criteria as well. I applaud your courageous, well-considered choice in supporting Obama. Please don't let the "angry mob" sway your decision. You have many backers, and I do beleive that PRESIDENT Obama will be a strong voice in support of Women's Reproductive Rights. Thank you!

Hillary Clinton, 1995, Bejing China:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hillaryclintonbeijingspeech.htm

What was barack obama doing? registering voters to get himself elected.

I am saddened by the brutally flaming comments that are made by so called feminist. I am ashamed that women can be so mean and so sexist and racist. The comments are horrible. And I hope those that threatened to discontinue their membership do so and leave this group to more open minded , intelligent, decision makers. I don't want women like you representing me. I wander if Hillary really thinks like you do. Good choice to endorse Obama. He is a winner and he's going to win. There is no way Hillary can win.

I was upset reading all of these nasty Obama people's emails but, now I have had a few days and I am laughing. Laughing because THIS IS THE NEW KIND OF POLITICS that they are running.

Feels like sexism ALL over again. And, quite frankly - racism as well.

When over 90% of AA vote for one candidate from one race and then 60% plus vote of one race vote for the other - I just don't see how the finger can be pointed at the race with 60% plus as voting out of racism.

Someone mentioned Donna B earlier. She makes me sick! I heard her on George's show on Sunday - and, she failed to mention what is REALLY going on with this endorsement. Or she probably doesn't even know.

I used to run large democratic party campaigns for candidates as well as fundraisers for the party and specific other events - I was always AMAZED at how ONLY the AA's expected to be paid to do the very same things that our white citizens did as a volunteer or they would not come out and support you. The AA support always went to the highest bidder.

These young things and even the older people that are all caught up in this Obama race - they don't have a clue what goes on behind the scenes.

And, as far as this new kind of positive politics - well we have already seen how that works just on this blog - but, the word "Change" doesn't make it so. Obama - if elected - which I don't see how possible because if he can't even make half of his own party support him and be happy about it - then how the hell does he or anyone else think he is going to be able to get Congressional and Senate members to support him for the "Change" that he is talking about? And, quite frankly, I don't even know what he means by "change" and I guarantee you that not a one of these nasty Obama supporters can tell you either.

Tons of people were getting behind Kinky Friedman in the TX Governor's race last time around until 6-weeks prior to the race and then they came out of their ether-state and asked themselves and Kinky's campaign, "Oh, wait a minute - before I actually vote for you - could you tell me exactly how you are going to bring about all of this change that you talk about?" Guess what - there was no plan.

I like Kinky and I actually like Obama - but, Obama supporters will help to kill this vote coming from Hillary supporters ALL BY THEMSELVES. They sure have for me - I know that.

We don't talk bad about Obama - we talk about "what is he going to do" but, boy they sure talk bad about Hillary. REAL POSITIVE NEW POLITICS!

Michelle, if you want to downplay our concerns over Obama as just racism, then you are sticking your head in the sand. Based on...what? Some experience you had a long time ago where you PERCEIVED that white women were looking down on Latinas in an organization? How much of that was your perception? You seem to *want* to find racism among white feminists and look for it wherever you go. And by this logic, no black woman or Latina woman has ever, in her life, had any sort of prejudice in reverse. Get real.

Don't insult women of color, as if they were these meek creatures that are afraid to speak up around white women. Puleez. Most cultures of women of color, including black, Asian, and Latina, are MORE SUPPORTIVE of strong women than that of white culture. Strong women are respected in these cultures in a way they are not in white culture. When I am around older black women, they exude a grace, a power, and a strength that many white women seem to have a hard time finding.

So don't tell me that women of color are afraid to speak up for themselves around white women. That is patronizing and wrong, and it insults women of color in my opinion.

But you are expressing precisely the divisive racial politics that the Obama campaign has been trying to use unsuccessfully: "If you don't support me, if you criticize me, you are a racist! You are a racist and you don't even know it! So shut up and stop criticizing, you racist!"

Well, getting back to the issue at hand: As you can see, this ill-timed endorsement of Obama by NARAL has done nothing to unite anyone. If anything, it has fanned the flames and given more fuel to Hillary supporters and just one more reason why we will not fall in line.

Real smart, NARAL.

And a PS to that, since I know it may come up: The difference between the outrage over the sexism against Hillary and the "you're a racist if you don't support Obama" are as follows:

We Hillary supporters don't automatically call Obama supporters sexist. Rather, we see a lot of sexism expressed in the media and by certain Hillary opponents. But we do not sit there and suggest that everyone who opposes Hillary is by definition a hater of women. And that's a huge distinction.

Hello Nancy--- I think you need to take a moment and step back from the issue at hand. Not only are woman's and men's voices being silenced before the primary season is over, but a strong advocate for Reproductive Rights who has been fighting for over 30 years has been passed up by a candidate who received a 50% rating by the Illinois Right to Life while he was in the State senate. Choice is an issue that he disregarded until Oprah started building his presidential platform. The patriarchal system silences woman every day. NARAL has chosen a candidate before the interview process is over. Put yourself in a position that will allow you to understand where the anger is coming from. We are not abandoning the issue of choice, but rather an organization that chooses to disregard thousands of supporters that pay their bills and ensure woman like you who gets swept up by propaganda that Choice is a battle that must be fought every day. The single word "OBAMA" is shouted at Hillary supporters across the nation. I don't want to associated with idiots that only now their candidates name--- I am an issue voter. Hillary Clinton's campaign is based on issues... and that is exactly what CHOICE IS... I am not going to support an organization that prematurely makes a decision or has supporters like yourself that resort to name calling to try to silence me. Stand up and silence me with an argument that can move me to vote for a man that has no clear vision.
Nancy--- please look a little closer at the race-- He is not the overwhelming choice of all Americans--- How about you suggest to your fellow Obamanistas to care a little more about the rest of the world and not just for a candidate you would like to invite to a party. Get used to the anger and the resentment--- you are the people who have made the mistake--- just wait when he is defeated you will be blaming Hillary Clinton yet again--- typical of the progressive liberal. Lets face it-- the only thing you do to contribute is blog and that wont beat the Republicans.

I am appalled by your decision to back Obama before these primary races have ended. I cannot believe you would not back a woman who has the experience and potential to become the next president. The doors she is opening are phenomenal for women now and in the future. Another example of a group jumping on the politically correct bandwagon without knowing where it's going. A shame...really. Don't expect any support from me, financial or otherwise ever.

I'm so mad I am voting for McCain and I don't care if he gets rid of our right to choose. Hillary is more important than other women.

Just read your interview, smarmy condescending dumb. I believe you are counting on people to rally around Obama so as to defeat McCain. Good strategy, but this is such an emotional issue that I fear that will backfire. I myself would vote for Obama against McCain,but I must admit that your endorsement took me by surprise, somuch so that I am reconsidering my vote which is not to vote at all. After reading your interview, you did nothing to convince me of how you came to this decision. To me the over riding factor is Hillary's long support of womens issues.I do not see what Obama being the candidate has to do with it . You could just as easily endorsed him when he was nominated. Your choosing to do this now smacks of, YES sexism! Do you really think Obama has the understanding of womens issues that Hillary has? If you do then we might as well fold the tent and all go home because all is lost. I believe that you have put the election of a democrat in jeopardy. Thios was to be a womens time aaand don't you think it is about time. Ido think you have failed miserably. You took a gamble, for what I don't know, and you just may lose.

I want to add my name to the list of women who are outraged, offended, and deeply saddened by this endorsement. To claim that this endorsement is about ending McCain's free ride only adds insult to injury. I am ashamed of NARAL and will now be sending all of my NARAL donations to Emily's list instead.

Let's not be myopic here; there is far too much at stake. We are in two wars, with the Republican Candidate threatening to start a new one. The next president is going to be able to appoint several Supreme Court Justices, as 6 of the 9 will be over 70 as of January 2009. I could understand the vitrol if Senator Obama wasn't pro-choice. However, we know that his record proves he has been a constant ally for Pro Choice Rights, in addition to human rights in general.
I hope people will think of the lives that hang in the balance with these decisions and issues. Perhaps you're not as directly affected by the consequences of a McCain Presidency. I implore you to consider the lives in Iran and Iraq, women and childen, human beings, who are voiceless in this process. Think about the assault on civil liberties, the sanction of torture, the corporate take over the courts which impedes the rights of women in the workplace against harrassment, the attacks on anti-rape and domestic violence legislation.
Please consider the ramifications of your votes.
I applaude NARAL for deciding to support the issue, as the charter indicates, PRO-CHOICE not PRO and/or ANTI any particular SEX.
I will support NARAL because the organization supports the issue that support me and the world I envision.

This is a true abortion of our cause. You take Hillary and toss her under the bus because you think it can help a black man be president quicker. Have you even looked at his record in IL. it's spotty at best and he has done nothing, NOTHING since he has become a senator.
What about Hillary? Did she freaking abandon us when it got tough? NO, she stood up and made a difference. There is only one person in the room with a set of balls here, and her name is Hillary.
Don't bother sending me anymore pledges and alerts and asking for handouts. We had our shot and you cut her off at the ankles. PUNKS

EMILY's LIST ROCKS
EMILY's LIST ROCKS
EMILY's LIST ROCKS
EMILY's LIST ROCKS
EMILY's LIST ROCKS
EMILY's LIST ROCKS
EMILY's LIST ROCKS
EMILY's LIST ROCKS

"I hope people will think of the lives that hang in the balance with these decisions and issues."

If NARAL really thought carefully and cared they would not have endorsed Obama in the thoughtless manner that they did. If they truly cared about the "lives that hang in the balance" then they would retract their endorsement of Obama, apologize to Hillary Clinton supporters, and wait until a Democrat is nominated before endorsing ANYONE.

ADMIT YOUR MISTAKE, NARAL.

But don't ask those of us who are through with NARAL to come to their aid now. There are plenty of other women's organizations. And we can elect Democrats in Congress. Obama in and of himself will not save the world and so no, we're not "uniting" just because you say so.

I have supported womens rights all of my life and have defended women all over the world and now it is time to defend the one that needs it most. Hillary has done more for women than Obama ever will in his life time so it is time for me to say good bye to the Democratic party and say hello Independant and I will be voting McCain this fall. If NARAL can not support a woman who has done so much then I no longer support you.

Intersting article about Hillary's run:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/hillary-clintons-defeat-a_b_102418.html

NARAL's only power comes from us. Kennan and her Board only have power if we give it to them.

If you are as angry as I am...over their endorsement of Obama...then write your state and federal representatives and senators. Tell them you are Pro-Choice...Support Senator Clinton...and NARAL does not speak for you.

The rhetoric on both sides of blog commentators has been obnoxious about the campaign. THere have been many racist comments made about Senator Obama and many sexist comments made about Senator Clinton. The issue on this blog, however, is whether NARAL should have endorsed either candidate before there was a pro-choice nominee. In my view, the decision went beyond NARAL's mandate to elect pro-choice officeholders, was ill timed and unreasonably divisive. NARAL's subsequent comments have been incredibly condensending and not very illuminating. For that reason my money is going to Emily's List and Planned Parenthood in the future. I am a supporter of Sen. Clinton but will probably vote for Sen. Obama in November but not without misgiving. To make one thing clear to Sen. Obama's supporters -- he is not the overwhelming choice -- if he were he would already have the nomination, which he doesn't. The Democratic Party is pretty evenly split between the two candidates and both should be accorded the respect and civility they deserve.

By jess on May 20, 2008 1:34 PM
“Here is the list of superdelegates.
lobbysuperdelegates.com
Also We are marching in DC on May 31st because Donna Brazile, Howard Dean and Barack Obama have ensured that 2.3million people's votes do not count. That's over 1 million women who's votes will not count so that they can put Obama into office.
Riverdaughter's blog has the info, google search for it.
Operation turn down is in effect. many of us who don't want this 1/2 term senator in office will not vote for him. And we don't have to fall in line with the dem party ticket just because organizations like this think he's there for women. Ask his backer Rep. Cohen why he likened Senator Hillary Clinton to Glenn Close from fatal attraction and said she should have stayed dead in the bathtub. “

Jess,

Thanks for super delegates list ABOVE and info about the march on May 31st in DC - above! GREAT idea. Where do we get details on the march?

Who is organizing the march?

GREAT INFO, Jess!

I join my sisters in feeling deeply saddened and angry that NARAL would blatantly disrespect our brilliant, experienced , pro-choice, WOMAN candidate, Hillary Clinton, and therefore leave thousands of NARAL's own constituency feeling disrespected also. And for what? Where is this myth for the "need" for Democratic party "unity" at this point in the primary season coming from? I live in Oregon, and contrary to conventional "wisdom" about what is good for the Democratic party, what ACTUALLY is happening is that local and state-wide Democratic turn-out, which is a GOOD thing for both local and national Democratic parties, is the biggest since 1968 -- when Bobby Kennedy was running way behind Hubert Humphrey (I was just a teen then, but I don't recall the media saying RFK should just give up and drop out). (By the way, in Oregon Obama has refused to meet with Clinton for any kind of public dialogue or debate, even though voters like me want our chance to hear him talk about issues that affect OUR state. One of his campaign workers admitted to me that he has "more to lose" by a debate -- well, John Kennedy debated with Lyndon Johnson all the way up to the convention even though Kennedy was ahead. I'm tired of Obama's making comparisons of himself to the Kennedys...) I can't help but think that NARAL hoped for some free publicity in endorsing Obama when it did and hadn't calculated the harm it's caused. If so, perhaps NARAL should consider it will get additional free publicity if it publicly apologizes to all its supporters it has inadvertently offended and then backtracks from Obama until the primaries are over. It it doesn't, I will be happy to send back, at NARAL's expense, all those pre-paid envelopes for donations it sends me with no check but a long (and heavy, costly) letter about why I can no longer support an organization that is this disloyal and careless with its longtime supporters.

disgusting!!!!!!!!!

obama will NOT have my vote. in november, i'll vote for hillary - regardless if she is on the ballot or not because I am a TRUE pro-choice woman who cares about the rights of women!

You people are insane! You are now completely against NARAL because they didn't endorse Senator Clinton? Hey, in case you dumbasses didn't know yet, Obama has the exact same view on abortion and women's rights as Clinton. Just because she's a woman, doesn't mean she's the best candidate. You women need to learn that you cannot support someone just because of their gender or race. It should be on the issues. I agree that we are overdue for a woman president, but Hillary Clinton is not the best choice!

I desperately hope all you women out there will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, even if it's not your beloved Hillary. Right now, it looks like it's going to be Obama, and contrary to Hillary's speeches about her having a better chance in November, polls show Obama 11% ahead of her against McCain. If you really are so racist that you would vote for a third term of Bush, go ahead. You will just be voting against your own personal interests and the interests of the American people.

Feminists created NARAL and I pray feminists let NARAL crash and burn now.

You have lost all credibility with this pointless endorsement. All you had to do was wait. Fools.

No money for NARAL. Ever.

I am so angry and disgusted that you would endorse Obama over Hillary - what a slap in the face to a strong woman leader just so you can have a chip with the probable next administration. I have no respect for your leadership.You have sunk very low.

If not Hillary why endorse anyone at this time?

WOW this is beyond belief!

Sisters!

Our comments are making an impact as we were on CNN today as far as this blog.

WE ARE MAKING our voices heard. We are strong, we are experienced, and we do this with love for our fellow human being and that is what makes this so important.

Hillary in the White House would spread help and love around the WORLD and give us a platform that we have never had before!

I personally want to thank everyone for all the work through the decades and standing up ONCE AGAIN - to go another round!

Today, Governor McCaskill of MO said on the piece on CNN about the comments from us on this blog "we would come around". SHE IS WRONG and her and KS Governor and others are going to regret abandoning a fellow sister for the highest office in the land! We will take care of Hillary now - as she has taken care of us and our causes for soooooo many years - and, then I suggest we turn our efforts toward defeating every woman that fought against Hillary (women) in this race.

Just another sister doing her part to keep this alive and show my mutual support!

With NARAL's Obama endorsement, the time has come for all of us who actually did the work and paid the prices for women's rights and civil rights to sit back, relax, and take it easy. The time has come for all those who benefitted from our labors to start shouldering the load. We'll see what "hope" accomplishes. Good luck to your organization and all Obama supporters. Hope you can make it on your own.

It is really time to stop fighting amongst ourselves.

NARAL's endorsement of Obama is just political non-profit throwing support behind the definite front-runner very late in the race. It is highly unlikely that Hillary will win, but if she does, I am sure NARAL will be 100% behind her.

Sisters...keep your eye on the ball. VOTE PRO-CHOICE AND AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN, WHOEVER THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IS.

Whatever the election may bring we can never forget that NARAL has stabbed women in the back.

It was OUR turn. 43 men presidents and NARAL had to back the MAN over the woman.

Never forget. Never give to NARAL again.

"By Eva on May 20, 2008 6:59 PM
It is really time to stop fighting amongst ourselves.

NARAL's endorsement of Obama is just political non-profit throwing support behind the definite front-runner very late in the race. It is highly unlikely that Hillary will win, but if she does, I am sure NARAL will be 100% behind her.

Sisters...keep your eye on the ball. VOTE PRO-CHOICE AND AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN, WHOEVER THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IS."

Eva, sometimes you have to chose principal over the present. If somethings are lost in the women's movement because McCain won - then all of these younger women that think they are so cool and know so much more than those of us that have worked our entire lives to leave more rights for them - are just going to have to learn the hard way. It would be good for them to have to go and fight for something for themselves and then maybe they would appreciate what we had done for them.

As far as the principal in this manner - the women's vote cannot be taken for granted EVER again!

I agree with the previous opinion about the long-term principle being more important than any short-term gain. Do we have the luxury of so many women leaders in politics that gender shouldn't matter to women?? Obviously not, and the fact that the "superdelegates" and the media moguls are overwhelmingly male has clearly been relevant in how this primary season has played out and reported (no matter how big the woman wins, it's still somehow a loss). I don't begrudge the solidarity of African Americans in their voting for Obama, so I wonder why any woman, of any race, should feel apologetic that as a woman, gender matters to her in voting for Hillary? Women need to make sure our vote is NEVER AGAIN taken for granted and that we correct any misimpression that we play nice and make up, no matter how dismissively we were treated. Ain't gonna happen, "Sweetie".

Dr. Smith - well said and this is EXACTLY what we are talking about!!

As a coed in the sixties, I saw firsthand sexism everywhere. I and many others fought for gender equality, maternity leave, and reproductive rights. As a high school teacher for 30 years, I saw firsthand how all of these accomplishments and their importance were taken for granted and even labled as babykilling. Well, all I can say is good luck getting volunteer and monetary support from the entitled generation. Not only do they not have the passion, but they also lack the income to support NARAL.Hope your pandering to the youngsters works out for you, but when it doesn't, don't bother to ask for help from the old grandmas-we're past worrying about it.

P.S.: I'm 61 fyi.

regarding the webchat: ummm, yes-- actually you did sound like a PR machine. thanks for asking. the "dialogue" represents merely a list of nice, pat answers that say absolutely nothing new, rather responses that simply churn out the same condescending justifications for your mistake. if you anticipated THIS kind of backlash, perhaps for the sake of NARAL's integrity you could've chosen a much wiser time to make an endorsement.

For all of those angry "feminists" from my generation: Please see the Huffington Post comments about the impact of Clinton in our future political arena at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/hillary-clintons-defeat-a_b_102418.html
As a woman, I am ashamed to read some of the comments posted here. Freedom of reproductive choice is not a male or female issue. Many women in this country are, unfortunately, "pro-life" in their politics and the underlying assumption that the male gender is automatically against the female gender when it comes to reproductive rights or political glass ceilings is simply ignorant. Obama is pro-choice and McCain is pro-life. I cannot understand how such a huge number of women in my generation would tell pollsters that, if Clinton is not the Democrat's candidate, they will vote for McCain or stay home. I think there has to be more than simply gender at work here. Have you all forgotten that the Clinton years were about one scandal after another with a totally dysfunctional marriage taking attention away from so many things that needed to be urgently addressed for the U.S. on the world stage--all taking a back seat to twisted logic and sematics ("It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.")...and a whole generation of young people learning about oral sex way too early. I don't want to see this circus back in the White House. Too much is a stake to be tied to the past. The second Bush was way worse that the first one...and I have no doubt that the second Clinton would continue the trend. We need fresh, new ideas, especially a break from Yale-educated presidents, and it is time for our generation to realize that we've done our jobs and it is time to let the next generation decide how they will move the country out of our current mess. The posts here show an unbelievable amount of hostility towards younger women who many see as ungrateful because they don't share your point of view. Wow! If ever I wondered how it is that women are their own worst enemies, this blog shows me the real underlying reasons.

I have supported NARAL financially as my first priority organization since its inception--30 years. And you will get no more from me. There was absolutely no need to endorse Obama and this action will go down in history as one of the worst betrayals of the women's movement.

I will now give your money to a Hillary write-in campaign which I know will be growing as your organization loses the bulk of its funding for such a stupid move.

Those of us in Illinois know that Obama has a very lukewarm record for choice and is just one more opportunist. Choice is just another issue to him. While Hillary has the best record of anyone on this issue.

Don't forget "Hell hath no fury like a women scorned." You will be seeing and feeling that fury in your finances very soon.

I can't believe you Hillary write-in people! Don't any of you remember the 2000 election? You know, that one where Nadar got enough of the Democrat vote that we had to spend weeks hearing about hanging chads and eventually got stuck with Bush as the president? Write in Hillary, and you might as well be voting for McCain, and voting for a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe, voting against accurate sex ed in schools, voting against access to birth control...

Imagine a typical company, one that considers itself progressive and forward thinking, especially when it comes to workers’ rights. There is a woman you have watched work hard over the years. She’s very efficient, and very diplomatic. In fact, she often gets people in the office who have different viewpoints to agree. She has experience in administration; in fact, her husband was the CEO of the company for eight years. Everyone knew she was part of the decisions that made the profitability of the company increase year after year. She was privy to the innermost secrets concerning the company, and a strong leadership voice in her own right. So she continued to work hard even after her husband left office. Finally, at age sixty, she decided to aim for the top, and she applied for the position of CEO herself, with the support of the men in upper management around her. All the other women in the office applauded her. They identified with her. “Finally a capable woman who has worked hard is being rewarded and will run the company!” they cried. However, they secretly wondered if what they’d always wanted---a woman leader---would actually come true. Sure enough, right before the decision was made, a man was brought in to challenge her for the position. He was young, from an exotic background, and he had a golden speaking style. He mesmerized everyone in the office, especially the men in upper management. Soon, it became obvious that the woman was not in consideration any more. The new guy, the brilliant guy---he would be CEO. Once he was appointed, the upper management gathered the women in the office together. “Don’t be silly and emotional, women. You have to support our new CEO! It’s for the good of the company. Sure, you’re upset now, but you’ll get over it.” The woman who was passed over went back to her desk quietly. Everyone, including this woman, urged the office workers to stand in line, stay with the company. But there was resentment there, and anger, and most of the women in the office walked out of that office one day and went to work for the competition down the street. If that strong, capable woman couldn’t stand up to the company, then they would.

Guess what Sharon, your rights as a FEMALE doctor would have gotten better with Hillary at the top! I have female friends that are in the AMA and they tell me how it is still a MAN'S world even as a doctor.

So, what did you not understand?

Jennifer, PO

I was dumbfounded when I heard you endorsed Obama. Why did you do that? Is it only because you see political gain for yourself down the road? Why did this organization do this when they did? what did Obama "promise" you in exchange for your endorsement(s)? Final note, you made a comment about all the new voters and voters who changed parties because of Obama. Let's be truthful here, ALOT pf people changed parties ALSO for Hillary. I know in my family alone there are 6 young voters ages 18-21 who registered to vote for Hillary, NOT Obama

Hillary Clinton promised in 1993 that she would engineer universal health care. She took her work behind closed doors with Big Business and kept out doctors like me. Having failed once, she gave up and the issues was not addressed again during the second term of her husband. I KNEW war in Iraq was not warranted, yet she voted for it--and with that vote, everything she ever did that was good turned into murder and death, and has harmed the US economy more than any other act by out leaders--NO to Hillary; to hear her tell it, she'd have us bombing Iran, too. No, thank you. If you think that women will suddenly have status and stature they did not have previously if one who was married to a former US President garners a nomination herself (something she could never have done on her own)--you are delusional. Clinton has done NOTHING for female physicians, ever.

Anyone can pretend to be a doctor. You are scary and I hope that you really are pretending.

You are bitter and you have no class or sophistication let alone understanding of politics.

I will let others deal with you because I have no respect for someone that calls another female delusional. Sounds just like an Obama supporter and how they talk about Hillary.

Way to go. To me, being pro-choice doesn't simply end at reproductive rights. I take it literally, in that I am for women's right to make whatever choice they desire to make. That includes choosing to staying home instead of working. That means choosing a man over woman for presidential nomination. I have heard so much vitriol from Hillary supporters which they accuse Obama supporters of. It seems as though if I don't support a first woman presidential candidate, I am anti-woman or betraying my gender. To believe I should support a woman mainly because it's about "time" to have a woman in charge, that puts my sense of equality on its head. I can't vote for a woman just because it's a payback time for all the gender discrimination the previous and current generations of women have suffered. Yes -- I am not naive enough to think that men and women are judged equally but to use this argument undermines our cry for equality -- that we should be judged on our capabilities and intelligence. I am disappointed at how much Hillary has used the gender card and cries of sexism to rev up her female base and then her campaign belittles the amount of support Obama gets from blacks. I am glad that NARAL didn't get suckered into the guilt trip and instead looked beyond the gender card to support a candidate. For NARAL to grow and become stronger, it needs new blood and Obama brings just that. Furthermore, this is the generation that is at risk of losing their reproductive rights if they don't get involved politically. This kind of forward thinking is essential for NARAL to stay relevant. I will now head over to the "donate" link. Thanks.

YEP! A new kind of positive politics! Hillary has not talked of the sexism ENOUGH!

I can always tell when someone was REALLY in the trenches working with women from the beginning because - they just don't get it!

Have a nice day, Min. I would try to explain it to you - but, you are too bitter for whatever reason. You are getting everything your way - so far - in stealing this nomination - and that is not good enough for you.

And, you are a new generation that is "at risk" - YOU ARE SO RIGHT ABOUT THAT! Good luck and prepare for something that you are probably not used to - THE REAL WORLD of politics when it isn't just as easy as holding up a sign that says, "Change we can believe in."

YEP! A new kind of positive politics! Hillary has not talked of the sexism ENOUGH!

I can always tell when someone was REALLY in the trenches working with women from the beginning because - they just don't get it!

Have a nice day, Min. I would try to explain it to you - but, you are too bitter for whatever reason. You are getting everything your way - so far - in stealing this nomination - and that is not good enough for you.

And, you are a new generation that is "at risk" - YOU ARE SO RIGHT ABOUT THAT! Good luck and prepare for something that you are probably not used to - THE REAL WORLD of politics when it isn't just as easy as holding up a sign that says, "Change we can believe in."

Oh yeah, pull up your jeans - your crack is showing. And, don't forget to turn off the video camera before you beat up a fellow female.

Now - that is CHANGE that we have really fought for the women of this generation! Really proud!!

Go to Obama's website, go to the Issues page and please find where choice, Roe or SCOTUS appointments are mentioned within the framework of reproductive rights.

That's right....they aren't there. Apparently Obama doesn't think this is an issue. Clinton, on the other hand, does.

Obama is taking you for granted. Obama is taking women for granted. Next thing you know, he'll be horsetrading reproductive rights for republican support on some future initiative. That is how democracry works, yunno. You can't trust someone who won't come forward, personally, and take a stand. Minions don't count, in fact it's indiciative of the blowoff he has given this issue.

Change isn't always a good thing.

This is a direct quote from Obama's website, from THE BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE--Barack Obama's Plan for America:
"Reproductive Choice
Obama has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving a women’s right to
choose under Roe v. Wade a priority as president. Obama also supports expanded access to contraception,
health information and preventive services to reduce unintended pregnancies."
Despite the claim of the last writer that reproductive rights is not an issue with Obama, it most certainly is, along with several other women-specific issues, including equal pay, paid leave for women-specific needs, better health care access and coverage for female-specific health issues (many of which are ignored by the current administration and would get worse with McSame). For the person who doubted my credentials, they are freely available at the ABIM (American Board of Internal Medicine) or the National Board of Medical Examiners (both have web sites with search engines). My full title should be: M.D., B.S.N. (Bachelor of Science in Nursing, A.A., L.P.N., and I have also studied chemical engineering (2 years at ASU with awards in engineering design at the local and national levels). I have also worked in metalurgical engineering and as a legal secretary to a law firm, working for the partner who managed the Navajo Nation contract in the early 1970's--where I also worked with Bruce Babbitt. I have a very intimate knowledge of reproductive issues and I am very PRO-CHOICE. I support Obama for those reasons. Clinton is not a role model, period. Her most ardent supporters, if this blog is any indicator, do not do their homework and are operating on irrational, emotional, unfounded biases. If you throw your support to McCain or a write-in for Hillary, I guarantee you McSame will further whittle away your rights in the areas you care most about. I lived in Arizona for far too many years and know all too well the politics of Arizona Republicans (my last boss was a Republican State Senator who intended to become governor, but was taken off guard when Symington was convicted of multiple felonies--Bill Clinton pardoned him before he served a day of the time he should have spent behind bars, by the way. Please, if you cannot support the rightful winner of the DNC nominating process, which is Obama, don't ruin the lives of countless women who will follow by a spitful need for revenge. And, please, do your homework and you will find that Obama is a really good second choice for you. He is my current state senator, and I have been very, very pleased with the responses I have had from him and from his offices on a host of issues going back many years. He listens and he acts. Hillary Clinton agreed to play by the DNC rules at the outset. Her campaign made many, many rookie errors from the outset and it has cost her the nomination. Don't blame Obama for her shortcomings or her egotistical sense of entitlement that turned off so many of us. Her campaign tactics, the "kitchen sink" ploy was the absolute last straw as was her disrespecting her fellow candidates at every chance. She is NO ROLE MODEL for me. I have worked too long and too hard in professions that are male-dominated and I know all too well that Clinton will not further our status in our own country--she will do just the opposite.

If the "sweetie" comment bothered you, please go back to 1998 and review the comments McCain made about Chelsea Clinton (he had to apologize after afirestorm of criticism)--which comment denegritated her appearance and sex. Michelle Obama, who is the essence of today's working woman/mother/wife, is a role model I can relate to and identify with. She "gets it" when it comes to the day-to-day struggles women find themselves in as they try to do it all. If you never worked your way through college or tried to juggle a career and child rearing in the framework of a marriage, you might not be able to understand just how great a role model she is. The working class is falling for campaign ploys that have them identifying with multi-millionaire Clinton over working-class Obama--the Obama epitomize working class America. Only Carl-Rovian style campaign tactics could characterize Hillary as working class anything. It is my fervent hope that those of you who throw the baby out with the bath water (as so many of your rants posted here would indicate), will rethink your positions before November. As Bush has shown, the reproductive rights of women all over the world suffer when the wrong choice is made in a general election. The No. 1 threat to our survival as a species is overpopulation. National Geographic has done a wonderful expose over the course of a whole year on this subject. Your vote matters as do your choices. Just, please, make them from an informed and well-studied position, not from an irrational bias.

Sharon Sandell just asked all of us women not wreck it for her or her male-dominated industry she works in by voting for Hillary.

She is full of hate and jealousy for Hillary and is full of herself having to list that she is a doctor.

For a doctor she sure does not seem to be very informed on current event accurately which I find kind of suprising.

For one thing says Hillary LOST already. Wow, I am shocked by her lack of understanding that Hillary has not lost anything as of now. She has been beating Obama by 35 and 40 pts. in two of the 3 states in the last tow contests.

These Obama people that want to cram their POSTIVE CHANGE down my throat. I am so very sick of people like this woman being so nasty just because we still want to compete that I would NEVER vote for Obama because of them.

This campaign about a new kind of politics and not being negative is an absolution fraud to the tune of over $250 million from contributors.

If you need any evidence of this fact - read her email above. VERY NICE.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/
My sentiments, exactly.

How do you determine what is worse - being called delusional or a nut case?

You have SILENCED ME for the last time and let an Obama supporter run all over what was the truest and longest type of supporter that you have had.

I don't understand why NARAL is purging their long-term supporters for a bunch of people that do not even know how your organization orginated or EVEN what your initials stand for!

I have had my children and I have 4 grandchildren. I am tired with this crap and I am out of here to go fight for Hillary!

Sharon.....What I was getting at is that Obama's website does NOT bring it to the level of its own issue right out with the others. What is buried in the site may differ. Most people don't dig that deeply, it's hard enough to get many to scroll down a single page. Even less will download and read the PDF file.

Because it isn't right out there among the list of issues, it is clear that the candidate doesn't consider it a top-level issue, so I question his commitment to it. This is where I formulated my opinion...if he truly felt it was important it would rise to the same level, even if only as a civil rights or health issue. It would have the high visibility on the site the issue truly deserves.

The fact that I have *never* heard anything directly from the candidate (only minions and surrogates have ever publicly addressed the issue from what I've seen) serves to reinforce my opinion.

Sharon.....What I was getting at is that Obama's website does NOT bring it to the level of its own issue right out with the others. What is buried in the site may differ. Most people don't dig that deeply, it's hard enough to get many to scroll down a single page. Even less will download and read the PDF file.

Because it isn't right out there among the list of issues, it is clear that the candidate doesn't consider it a top-level issue, so I question his commitment to it. This is where I formulated my opinion...if he truly felt it was important it would rise to the same level, even if only as a civil rights or health issue. It would have the high visibility on the site the issue truly deserves.

The fact that I have *never* heard anything directly from the candidate (only minions and surrogates have ever publicly addressed the issue from what I've seen) serves to reinforce my opinion.

I do not intend to vote for McCain. I'm looking for a third party.

"Without a clear Democratic nominee, Sen. John McCain has been getting a free ride with the media...With our endorsement, John McCain’s free ride ends. "

Looks like the secretary at the NARAL forget to call Senator Clinton to tell her she was supposed to drop out of the primary upon Nancy Keenan's big and powerful endorsement?

Linda,

Though your attack was directed towards Sharon I feel like I really need to say something

You called her post "nasty," said she was filled with "hate and jealosy," that she was not informed. Obviously, if you read her post, you know that she is informed so that is not really worth addressing any further, in my opinion.

But, your other accusations show just how far down the wrong road we have gone. Where in her posts did you see anything nasty or hateful? She never made personal attacks against anyone, she was focused on the issues and the facts, and she stated her beliefs. But you turned on her and attacked her in a nasty and personal way because she has decided to support Obama.

If we want to have a debate based on facts and ideas that is great, it is something that needs to happen. But these personal attacks on each other have got to stop. I know many people are angry, and sometimes it is hard to control it, but it is getting us nowhere. All it is doing is giving the misogynists in our society more ammunition for their theory that women operate only on an emotional level, that we are incapable of reason and logic. Attacking each other on a personal level only hurts us and the feminist movement.

I have just renewed my membership and contributed to the PAC. I am a 58 year old white female lawyer and thank you for your support Obama. When I first began practicing law, women were an oddity. As a result, I suffered through much gender discrimination at a time when I was young and my livelihood depended on handling it. I now have a 21 year old daughter and my support of women's rights and equality has never wavered. Nevertheless, I have not supported Mrs. Clinton. In my view, she represents not women, but wives of former presidents, a group with which neither I nor my daughter can identify. Mrs. Clinton was elected Senator from NY by relying on the contacts, money and backers of her husband's presidency. She entered this campaign with backers, money and name recognition based largely on her husband's presidency. She built her campaign on the "friends of Bill" around the country. It could be argued that Mrs. Clinton could have achieved all she has on her own, but the facts are that she didn't. During the campaign HRC has been claiming experience and readiness based on her husband's presidency, while also arguing that she can not be held accountable for any actions that now do not suit her purpose.
It is certainly true that Mrs. Clinton has experienced some sexism in this campaign. But is has been far less of a burden to her than racism has been on the Obama campaign. Much of what Mrs. Clinton labels sexism is directed at her and her husband personally. Many can not forget the promise of the Clinton Presidency which was undermined by their personal drama. Some have a hard time forgetting that in order to protect her family, Mrs. Clinton engaged in character assassination against any female who reported on her husband's lack of fidelity to their marriage. In the end, we all learned that those women were only telling the truth. She did not consider her "sisters" then, thus many find her appeal to "sisterhood" now more than a little disingenuous. It is clear that Mr. Obama won based on the rules they all agreed to at the beginning. Mrs. Clinton agreed that the primaries in Michigan and Florida should not count, because she didn’t want the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries to be pushed into December or November. It was only after she received the most votes in those events and she realized that she was behind that she became a champion for those delegates. While Mrs. Clinton has every right to continue her campaign, she and we must realize that all the money she will need to retire her campaign debts could have been directed at pro choice candidates down ballot.

Thanks, Heather, I appreciate your comment. I took the challenge of finding where on the Obama web site that Roe v. Wade was mentioned and found it in a couple of seconds. There is readily available further information under health care--but you have to scroll and read. I am somewhat puzzled that someone who first claimed that the information was not to be found on the Obama website--now having been proven wrong about that--complains further that it is too hard to find! I am beginning to believe that the people who are so vehemenantly opposed to Barack Obama simply don't know anything about him. I live in Illinois and I know my senator (as a citizen, not personally, although I do know many people in politics going back over 50 years and Studs Terkle thinks enough of me to write about me--his opinion matters to me, too). This is something I found in less than two secons as well:
"Women's Health: Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services." Having worked as both an LPN and RN in neonatal intensive care in both public and private hospitals, I am so happy to see someone addressing premature birth. It is a horrendous problem in our country. My best friend, who is 71, just had both breasts removed. She had carcinoma in situ diagnosed in the left breast and, after looking at all her options and the prognosis for each, decided to have bilateral (both sides) mastectomies. After surgery, the pathologist diagnosed invasive ductal carcinoma in her right breast. She was lucky to have made the decision she did because no one expected or believed the worse of the two cancers was in the undiagnosed breast. In Illinois last year several pharmacists decided that they knew better than the patients and doctors they served and refused to dispense the so-called "Morning After" pill (religeon cited as teh reason). I am so grateful that my state senators and legislators jumped into this right away and made certain that the pharmacists either comply or lose their licenses. I know what happens when BIG BUSINESS dictates to doctors and patients. I also know what Hillary Clinton proposed when she had a chance to keep the 1993 promise she made to finally have universal health care for all and it was absymal. I would hazard a guess that it was too much trouble for those of her ardent supporters to actually download and read the proposed pro-lobby, pro-Big-Insurance, Pro-HMO, and very anti-doctor, anti-patient plan she came up with, because you would not be a supporter if you bothered to read that document as well. I am not telling anyone to stop supporting HRC--that is your choice and this is a free country (albeit much less free in the past 8 years and likely even less free if McSame wins); I am saying that, if you care about reproductive rights, Senator Obama does, too, and his overall approach is really quite good. I agree with everything Heather said. The fastest way to not be taken seriously is to act on emotion alone. I hope those of you who are posting hateful rants will copy them, put them aside somewhere for a few years, and then read them from a more mature perspective. You might just surprise yourselves. My mother, rest her soul, used to say: "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Every time I have started to lose my temper with a mysogenistic colleage, I remember that. Ignorance (lack of knowledge, not lack of smarts) is inexcusable with so much at stake this election cycle. I do know HRC has not thrown in the towel--and I posted a link to the website of a prominent female political commentator (an Obama supporter) who praises her and explains why her campaign will make all women better off in the future. I don't hate HRC--I don't "hate" anyone. I have studied her politics and seen her in action and I simply do not hold her as a role model. I cannot support any woman who would stay with a known phillanderer for her own political gain. It is beyond incomprehensible to me. I am simply stating that if the popular vote is for Obama (who won 2 of the last 4 states, not 1 of the last three--numbers can say anything you want then to say in some cases--and nine straight before that, and, by the way won Texas because he does wind up with the most delegates from that state and even CNN changed their website stats on that one), he is a good second choice for HRC supporters. McCain is not. Nor is throwing an election, as happened in 2000 (and look what we wound up with!) with Nader splitting off needed votes. It really, really matters to all of you who are upset about HRC, because the same thing could happen in 2008. Women in 3rd world countries are denied birth control from the U.S. under this administration. Doesn't that bother you? Poor women in the US are denied birth control (although their husbands can get Viagra paid for by Uncle Sam) if they are dependent on federally sponsored health programs.
Doesn't that bother you? A poor woman who is raped, or one who is in the armed services and raped, is denied an abortion under this administration--and denied any form of intervention other than a term delivery. Doesn't that bother you. If you have read anything about McCain (I know, it's a REAL bother), then you know that this would be just the beginning of undermining everything my generation fought so hard to bring about, like Roe v. Wade. I remember when the hostess of a children's program in Phoenix, AZ, found out that a drug she had been taking caused serious birth defects (no arms or legs) during the first trimester of her pregnancy was forced to go to Europe for an abortion of a severely deformed and brain damaged fetus. She was fired from her job. That will all come back, together with back-alley abortions that KILL the unfortunate woman who makes a mistake and has an unwanted pregnancy. If you want your daughters, granddaughters, or great-grandaughters to find themselves in the reproductive DARK AGES, then go ahead with your write-in for Hillary or vote for a third party or vote for McCain (that's who will be president in all three cases). Look, I'm really sorry that that the DNC and its leadership made stupid rules for this party. But both candidates agreed to play by those rules at the outset. It is HRC that is looking like the proverbial "crybaby" because she underestimated the organizational capability of her opponents. She agreed until it meant she would lose outright (that's the math--look it up if you can bother, CNN posts it daily). It is just this kind of behavior that makes all women look bad. I will vote for HRC if Obama does lose this nominating process. But, please, just wonder for a bit, why did people like Ted Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, Bill Richardson, etc., and organizations like "Move-On.org" and NARAL decide to vote for Obama? Dig just a little deeper and you just might find you actually agree with them. If the only thing that it takes to have you rabidly supporting the female candidate is that she is female, that's a pretty silly reason to be so angry. If you really, really understand where the millions she has been able to lend her campaign came from (hardly a "middle class" kind of thing), you cannot possibly want someone so beholden to lobbyists and BIG business interests (that are moving our jobs overseas, that are ruining our economy, and that are making us a two-class society (poor and rich). Did you know that Jeb Bush of Silvarado fame started a company that makes software for the "No Child Left Behind" program--funded to the tune of millions by Dubai's head of state--which software is required by every public school child in two states (guess which two)? If you didn't know that, you probably never heard of the Keating Five. Please, do some homework.

Correction to my last post: The Silvarado Bush is Neal Bush, not Jeb (but Jeb made sure FL students had to buy Jeb's software). Google "Neal Bush, Silvarado, Dubai" in one search and prepare to be outraged.

I too was very surprised to see that now...after all of this time someone there decided that women's issues are actual issues. It wasn't earlier this week, or last month or last winter, when I first looked at supporting Obama and checked out his website.

Canary, the information has been there all along. Obama's campaigns for Illinois state senate and his campaign for US Senate also included women's rights (the whole spectrum, not just the Pro Choice issue). I guess a closed mind cannot be changed, regardless of truth.
Have you read Primary Colors? Or seen the movie? Do you think a real feminist would hire someone to find all the women who had slept with Bill and engineer a character assassination against them before they could speak out on his abuse of power as Governor of Arkansas? This was written by a campaign insider and HRC has never denied it. With "sisters" like this, we can all forget about advancing the causes women care about. Would a true champion of women's rights stay with a husband that slept with every skank he could? Is it a feminist that stays with this mysogenistic philanderer or an overly ambitious person who would trade her self respect for political connections she did not have on her own? If I and everone I know could see through the Bush Administration's rediculous case for war against Iraq, why did she vote to enable them? Have you seen Farenheit 910 and what the US did to thousands of innocent Iraquis for oil and oilmen's wallets? And she cannot and will not admit she made a mistake or apologize to the thousands of families destroyed forever. It is easy to not look past the hype and well-orchestrated "issue-by-poll" or "interest group research" (Bill Clinton perfected micromanagement of public opinion by these means and HRC never says anything or does anything that has not been vetted through mock trial first). She's "found her voice" so many times in the past year my head is spinning. She's one thing in one state, a different thing in another--whatever suits her purpose. I'm telling you a clearly and plainly as I can that Obama has been an activist for women's issues (he has two daughters and a wife as the center of his universe after all) since graduating from law school. This is my absolute last post to this forum. NARAL has my finanacial support (I put my money where my mouth is) for their wisdom and courage under fire. The behavior of so many pro-Clinton posters seems to be very much in line with HRC's--forget what really happened, cry "foul" or make some lame excuse at every obstacle, and blame everyone else for her own shortcomings. All of the worst and most sterotypical anti-feminist traits that keep us down (barefoot, pregnant and home with our mouths shut and heads hung low) have been displayed by this hero of the cause. I know from years of experience that people who hold on to irrational positions and make up false claims to assassinate the character of anyone who does not become a true "believer" (suspend all reason, it's so because I believe it is so, to he-- with the facts) is not a reasonable or rational thinker and does not go further than the surface of issues, nor do they listen to or consider alternative positions because it would mean they made a mistake and their poor sense of self-determination or worth cannot stand the self-examination. NARAL, regardless or your feelings, has a right to support whomever they decide would best further their goals. They didn't make their choice to please anyone--they did so to further their primary "raison d'etre" and know where self-preservation is best served. Congratulations, again, NARAL, for being an organization with a real backbone!

I have READ AND READ AND READ for days now and NOT said a word!

I HAVE HAD ENOUGH from the women that have said hurtful things about Hillary Clinton and the women that support her.

I am watching Iron Jawed Angels right now. I suggest that EVERY WOMAN do the same! It is so funny how much history REALLY does repeat itself and how women continue to be our own worse enemies!

It does not matter if this is Elizabeth Dole running or Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Hillary Clinton. GET A CLUE all of your women that claim to be feminists!

And, give the woman (Hillary Clinton) some credit for fighting the fight for ALL OF US. She is human. She gets tired. She makes mistakes. She is not perfect.

But, all of YOU - that sit on the sidelines and do nothing more than BITCH - SHAME ON YOU!

And, for the men on here that have nothing better to do than make their ugly remarks. You do NOT have a dog in this fight!

The wisest writing and the most heart-felt writing that I have seen on here was written by an elderly lady that is with a women's group that she was writing on behalf of. Her name is Gladys Perkins and I have copied her writing below.

I read that writing to my own mother this morning that does not use the internet either. We cried together.

PLEASE read the following and give respect to our elderly women that have been so shook up by all of this because they have worked so hard, prayed so faithfully, and put so much on the line from a very early age so that we women could have more rights.

I fully expect to see something written by HEATHER and a couple of others including LEO that seem to not have anything better to do. But, I ask the rest of you that can be objective to PLEASE have an open-heart and sharpen your mind as to what this all REALLY means for our country – NOT JUST FOR WOMEN – to continue to have men run every aspect of our lives. And, when politics is ruled by men – then everything is ruled by men. I love my father and my brothers and my grandsons and want EQUAL rights for them as much as I do for all races and everyone. This is what strong women in office will be sure to do.

STAND STRONG – WOMEN or at the very least – quit being our own worst enemy!

I am copying what Gladys Perkins wrote yesterday. Gladys – I love you and your group and I for one want to thank all of you for your heart and soul!

By Gladys Perkins on May 23, 2008 9:56 AM
Dear Ms. Keenan & NARAL,

There are a lot of angry people here. I am here on behalf a group of mature women who can't use a computer. It's unfathomable to us how an organization based on a woman's right to choose could deal such a selfish blow to a woman who has spent her entire life standing up for women.
We cannot understand this - nor will we ever.
I was going to go into detail and lay out our arguments, but it's perfectly clear that your decision was made unilaterally and no defense of it will be forthcoming.

What defense is there?

We find your silence indicative of someone who knows they did the wrong thing and chose to put personal notoriety ahead of the greater good -- someone who doesn't have the moral fiber to stand up and admit to it. What one doesn't say is more telling than what one does.

In the end it is always a woman who has to take down a woman. Men can't do it alone. Senator Clinton has been impervious to men's childish envy and discontent. You haven't destroyed Senator Clinton, externally, but on the inside this has to have hurt her in ways we cannot articulate. Twenty years of the media tormenting her and you did more than any misogynist could do: You her hurt her feminine soul. We cry over this every meeting. We sit and cry and wonder what our struggles were for and for whom.

Our group is fifty-five women strong--not all able-bodied or clear of mind--but none of us will be voting for Mr Obama. We will be writing Senator Clinton in on the ballot. With pride.
Senator Clinton is the champion of and for our generation. Our hopes and dreams rest in her heart. She has done what we did not have the strength or fortitude to do. She has outlasted many men and has gotten further than any woman has before only to be disregarded and cast aside by a supposed woman's advocacy committee.

Senator Clinton is an amazing woman whose worth will not be acknowledged until we are long gone. We want her to know that we love her and appreciate her years of struggle. She represents how one woman can change the world and you represent how one woman can destroy it.

Those of you who write those despicable comments about a woman whose shoes you have not walked in and could never fill need to look at Miss Chelsea Clinton. Watch how she comports herself and you will know what a loving woman and mother Senator Clinton is. Watch the love that passes between them when they look at each other and imagine how Chelsea views your sacred betrayal of her mother. Ask yourself how Chelsea will explain this to Senator Clinton's granddaughter.
You have undone a lifetime of struggle with a selfish decision that no woman of class would have ever thought of - let alone carried out.

You are not of the younger generation, Ms Keenan, which makes your betrayal even more loathsome.

In closing, we would like an apology and we would like to hear the answers to the posed questions in this area. Thank you for listening and for providing a forum in which to be heard.

May God have Mercy on your soul.
Gladys Perkins for The Women of Wisdom

If any of you doubted the media bias against Hillary Clinton, I would hope the last 24 hours when her reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassination in June was made into a supposed implied reference to Obama. If any of those reporters knew their history, they'd realize that RFK was way BEHIND Hubert Humphrey in delegates when he won the California primary. Therefore, if Hillary was comparing him to anyone, she was comparing him to HERSELF, someone who has also won California and who is behind in the delegate count yet they weren't calling on RFK to get out! Thus Hillary's original point was lost in this silly media frenzy about Obama, and so undeserved, because if the comparison she was making was actually held, she'd be implicating herself as a target, not Obama! Sigh. She was obviously doing neither, but she's a woman and even our own NARAL has made up its mind she should sit down and be quiet, so everything she says is cast in that light, and the Obama campaign is all too happy to purposely misread her point as well. I sure don't see or hear the "new politics" that are supposed to unite, not divide, from Obama. And NARAL's premature endorsement of Obama has clearly divided, not united, their supporters either.

I'm not here to try to change anyone's mind, please stop trying to change mine. You won't.

I just wanted to make the point that NARAL endorsed a candidate who has a weak record (voting "present" does not indicate a principled stand on any issue) and didn't until yesterday find that this issue comes to the level of being an issue. Apparently someone here managed to point that out to the campaign, hence the change on the website.

If I was a vindictive person I'd have kept screenshots.

One last thought....for Hillary's supporters, for Obama supporters, for all Democrats. Should this not work out for either candidate, the party will need your support for House and Senate candidates, especially the Senate. If the Democrats get a 60+ majority in the Senate (a tall order but not impossible), Congress will be calling the shots. After the executive powergrab of the past 8 years, it may be a very very good idea.

http://www.dscc.org/
http://www.dccc.org/

A veto-proof majority will ensure passage of the Freedom of Choice Act regardless of who occupies the Oval Office. Let's not lose sight of what the real goal is here.

"A veto-proof majority will ensure passage of the Freedom of Choice Act regardless of who occupies the Oval Office. Let's not lose sight of what the real goal is here."

I've read a lot of outright stupid things on this post, but that takes the cake! I don't want to make a personal attack but I cannot pass that statement by without comment. The writer already proved she was lazy and posted blatant untruths that were immediately corrected by others, but she doesn't quit.
If John McCain is able to appoint just one more conservative Supreme Court Justice, which will happen if he is elected, it will not matter what the Congress passes--the court will rule Roe v. Wade Unconstitutional and any law they pass will meet the same fate with regard to Freedom of Choice. Get a clue, honey.

Julie wrote, "Get a clue, honey."

ANOTHER sexist remark.

I am NOT impressed by this "new kind of politics" that all of these Obama people speak of.

I WILL NEVER vote for Obama in MAJOR-PART because of the viciousness that his supporters have shown toward anyone that is not for him.

I have had my children and now I have grandchildren. Quite frankly, I could give a damn anymore about the Choice issue if this is where it brought all of us. My thinking has changed drastically over the years and I believe that MORAL issues is the most important issue that we need to concentrate on in this country as the venom in this country from ungrateful and vengeful women toward women just makes me ill.

Young women today will have to figure this out with their idol Obama because I can guarantee you - the majority of African American Baptist voters ARE NOT for choice or gay rights!

Julie, Canary was NOT vicious in her remarks - AT ALL. She may not have been accurate in her assesment but, neither are you. But, bottom line her is WHY did you feel the necessity to be so condensending and cruel toward her?

These Obama supporters are just to immature and so arrogant and out of control.

I am an Independent. I have not had a candidate that I have supported from the beginning of the Primary race. But, because of the fraudulant way that the Obama campaign has collected contributions and endorsements on calling themselves "a new kind of politics that is inclusive and positive" and I have seen nothing but the opposite - my conclusion is - NO OBAMA for this household!

Guess supporters aren't the only ones who have "inexcusable outburst"s.

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/say-what-hillary-clinton-does-it-again/

You are just too mean and vicious and not very bright - to waste time on.

Julie....Sorry, you just don't get it. McCain wouldn't have a chance to get an anti-choice Justice confirmed if there was a 60+ Democratic majority in the Senate. Insurance is smart, no?

BTW..Insurance (read: universal health) is another of Obama's deplorably weak points..there's more to the non support of many than just choice issues.

Go read Paul Krugman in today's NYT. Your candidate has some major problems, and has been ignoring them.

Ouch, personal attacks hurt. Oh, wait, no they don't.

But thanks for the compelling argument for your candidate.

Canary, I'm a Clinton supporter, not an Obama supporter. My comment was directed towards a statement you posted and I tried to say I did not want to get personal--apparently you cannot read, either. I am ashamed of what I see coming from Clinton supporters on this blog and that seems to be where the visciousness is coming from. It doesn't matter what the composition of the House and Senate are when the Supreme Court makes a decision--they can even overturn elections. The Republican religeous right has been trying to get Roe v. Wade OVERTURNED IN THE SUPUREME COURT for years and, if McCain selects just one more JUSTICE of that persuasion, GAME OVER. The Congress can legislate until the cows come home, but the Supreme Court is THE FINAL SAY. Your comments are idiotic and uninformed and do not help the Clinton cause at all.

Julie your comments are WAY out of line. And, even though I am sure that Canary is able to stand up for herself - you disgust me.

"Your comments are idiotic and uninformed and do not help the Clinton cause at all."

Linda Carson

If Hillary were to read the comments of her supporters here, I have no doubt she would cringe--and they made me cringe in empathy. With supporters like this, she doesn't need enemies: You make her look bad. The organization has a right to endorse the candidate they choose. They did not "betray" you personally. Just as OPINION writers have right to their opinions. I don't mind reading ones I don't agree with so long as they stick to the issues and the facts and don't make up falsehoods or denigrate other candidates unfairly or unjustly. The voting "present" issue is misrepresented because it is custom in the Illinois State Senate to use that vote: Use your computer to look thinks up first before you type. I see the Clinton campaign as increasingly desperate and I am losing my strong pro-Hillary feelings after reading some of the posts here and looking up some of Obama supporters references. The last thing I want to do is be part of a vicious group who cannot see beyond their own noses, who lie when it suits them, or who flatly make up stuff to support their point of view and demonstrate at every turn they are too lazy to inform themselves fully about all the candidates. I want to see a woman President before I die, but if that woman attracts people like the ones posting in her favor here, I will rethink my position quickly. I know a hopeless cause when I see one...and I'm not just referring to Clinton.

Julie - you HAVE TO BE KIDDING.

Calling Canary "honey" in the condesending way that you did. Then calling Hillary supporters "uniformed and idiotic".

No one called you AN IDIOT!

But, you are mean and you do NOT have a clue who you are talking with.

Do NOT assume to EVEN know what Hillary fills. HOW DARE YOU! She has been throught the same thing those of us just writing on here are going through from attacks from you. Only her attacks have been day in and day out.

YOU HAVE NEVER supported Hillary! You are an Obama supporter through and through. And, your information about the "present" vote. What a joke you are. No ONE said anything other than he has not taken a stand on issues. This is not a personal attack against him. Just a fact that leaves people in the dark as far as where he stands.

But, again - YOU HAVE NOT BEEN A CLINTON SUPPORTER - so don't get on here and pretend otherwise. It is neither believable and certainly not impressive that you have been such a kind and honest person that you are switching your support for Hillary because people are defending themselves against you. What a crock of crap!

I am like one other person I read earlier - YOU ARE NOT WORTH this and I have nothing more to write to you and will not read anything else you write.

On Obama's present votes (but don't let the truth get in the way of your opinion):

http://ppaurora.blogspot.com/2008/02/setting-record-straight-illinois-nows.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712140004

Once again, there is a post on this blog that referenced the "present" vote (before the above, way back when it was a new blog) and you demonstrate that you did not really read anyone else's opinons. I did and I read all the referenced materials as well. I'd give you the date, but I challenge you to actually read what others have written--so find it yourself. The forth post to this blog would seem to sum up the class of the outraged self-reported HRC supporters. In reading ALL the posts, it becomes readily apparent that some are just mouthing off and actin out here and I, personally, think the DNC can survive without them and have no doubt that NARAL will gain more than they lose because the ingorant tend to be the less-edcated and less able to contribute anyway. The most thoughtful and well-reasoned posts appear to come from those with a tighter grip on the facts and less hysteria evident in their posts. This is an intersting sociological study and the exit-polling seems to delineate just that demographic on each side of the issue (HRC vs. Obama). I truly did start out supporting Hillary--but started questioning that support when I contacted her operation to volunteer and realized that there is a lot of infighting going on there. After having read this blog and each candidate's respective websites I would not have a problem if either were elected. I, for one, am apparently not the typical HRC supporter as I would put country ahead of personal preference and do everything I could to prevent another anti-choice Republican from stacking the Supreme Court against women. It takes an enormous amount of stupidity to go off on a tangent and defeat that which you purport to support. What are you all going to do when Hillary throws her support behind Obama for the general election? Tell her to do what the 4th poster told NARAL to do? And, FYI, self-proclaimed (but horrendously misinformed and lazy feminists of the canary ilk), one of the original founders of NARAL was a man who is now an extreme prolifer. Please, stop making a fool of yourself with proclamations that are provably untrue. Positively my last words on this subject--you've turned me off thoroughly on any pro-Clinton leanings I once held.

I am a man who believes there is a limit to the intrusiveness of government into the private lives of citizens, including making reproductive choices. What concerns me as I peruse the negative comments concerning NARAL's endorsement of Barak Obama is whether the acrimony will endure to the point of people this fall staying at home or voting for John McCain. Either choice will result in the election of a president who will surely appoint supreme court justices (to succeed potential retirees) who will overturn Roe v. Wade. It is vitally important to those who believe in choice to heal this wound. The important issue is to elect a president who will protect choice, regardless of that president's gender.

I have stood in front of and protected many a young woman trying to get past hostile pro-lifers. I have been spit on, a brick thrown at me, and so many other things to fight for choice early on when fighting for this right was not easy to do. It was down-right dangerous in many cases with bombing of clinics, death threats, and even had my office bombed because I was so active in the movement! Had FBI with their bomb-sniffing dogs outside of my office many - many times. And, I am not special and this was not unusual back then.

And, yet . . . .I have never been so offended or felt so used by people as I do now from people that I have stood with, voted for, volunteered for and contributed my hard-earned dollars.

Mr. Barnes - I have never voted republican in my life. But, like thousands and maybe millions of my fellow female sisters - we are CHOSING to not EVER be taken for granted again. If this means that choice is lost in the process - that is the price that will have to be paid.

People that I love and worked beside for years before they were EVER big-named politicians themselves - have been called racist by Obama supporters. I find this unforgivable and so hurtful that I am sad in the late years of my life.

Therefore, since I will not get to see a female president in my lifetime - I for one - am going to make sure that I go out of this world making a HUGE statement to a Party that has obviously used me and taken me for granted, as a female, for years.

Mr. Barnes, I do want you to know how much I appreciate how civil you were in your remarks even though we disagree.

I have felt so disrespected in this entire process and I know most women that we email one another - and it truly is thousands of us talking almost daily in very large groups of emails - we are all on the same page.

Obama has a problem and so does the democratic party because WE ARE NOT coming back around and doing what is expected of us THIS TIME in our lives.

I too have hated the intrusiveness of government but, I expect this from them. I did not expect what has been done to us by our own Party and organizations that have been like family to us for decades.

So, we will have another man for president and that is NOT the issue with me either. It is how we have been treated just trying to compete as well - excited and hopeful - to feel that we were not deserving or wanted or had a right to do so.

I just can't even describe to you what this has done to all of us early pro-choice warriors. Our spirits have been broken by a Primary Candidate's campaign that has claimed to be so positive and a democratic party that acts like we are the old lady that is no longer needed or wanted and, therefore, they are shipping us off to the nursing home to get rid of us.

I am now 56 years old. When I was 22 years old I joined NTARAL (North Texas) and NARAL as the first political organizations I chose to devote myself to. I have been a loyal supporter and volunteer for many years and escorted many a young woman into clinics through crowds of hostile protestors, I have held hands through procedures, I have written letters, I have donated money and now I have been betrayed.

The only reason I visited your site today was to check in and see if you had perhaps returned to your senses and listened to your issue's most loyal supporters. I am not receiving mail from you any longer because I withdrew my support and unsubscribed myself from your list as of May 14.
Instead I found your insulting, condescending, ridiculous video. No, we won't be "getting over it" or returning to the fold. NOW, Planned Parenthood and HRC will be receiving my donations, along with the Democratic Party.

I don't hate Barack, although I have been disappointed in his campaign's sleazy manipulations and in the Media's treatment of Hillary. I am a yellow dog democrat and always will be. I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, but that fight still isn't over yet and I can not believe that you chose to stab Hillary in the back before it was. That is what hurts me so much is the pain that your unappreciative betrayal must have caused our most tireless longtime warrior for our cause. It caused me such shame and embarrassment to be part of an organization that would do that. So yes, I will still support the Democratic Party, but no, I will never return to NARAL.

I am considering becoming a misogynist over the stupidity of these comments.

You're probably all the same morons that voted for Nadar and got Bush elected (and 100k people in iraq killed).

Long live our ideals as the republicans rule the world!

Although I said I would not post on this blog again, I cannot help but say that Hillary lived up to every expectation I had of her in her performance Tuesday--necessitating NY party leaders to pressure her to concede in a race she had obviously lost and calling it a major political blunder in the process. Obama has been extremely gracious and magnanimous while she has tried to throw her weight around and has acted like a spoiled child. In my 62 years I have not seen such an ungracious exit from a campaign. How sad. Meanwhile, the DNC has announced the history-making, ground-breaking decision NOT TO ACCEPT any money for the campaigns from lobbyists or PAC groups. Hooray for the DNC and President Obama. This man has moved me (an old white female) more than any other politician in my lifetime and I certainly have more hope for the future of the US than I have had in the past 10 years--or ever expected to have again. Gender and race are going to be non-issues in future elections. No one will ever again take their place in this party for granted, either. It is SO time for a new generation to take over. The mean-spiritedness of Clinton seems to have filtered down to her supporters. I think the party can live without you. Any person who sees only a single issue in a world of pressing and urgent concerns should stay out of the process altoghether. Just my opinion.

As an Illinos resident, Senator Obama is my state senator. Since he became my senator, I have frequently written him voicing my concerns about issues both national and international. I also send my concerns to Senator Dick Durbin and my Congressman, Danny Davis. Even though Senator Obama is in the middle of an exhaustive run for the office of President of the US, he and his staff still respond in depth to my letters, giving me updates on the issues I am concerned about and expanding the responses to include an overall history of recent developments on each issue. For those people who have posted here that they doubt that he does anything of substance, I have copied and will paste his most recent letter regarding my concern that the Bush Administration has cut off brith control not only at home, but all over the world (the US used to assist in addressing the reproductive health of 3rd world countries but now refuses to give ANY health care whatsoever to any clinic or entity that offers birth control in any form--even just counseling--to poor women). This is typical of the responses I have had from my senator since he became a US senator and is consistent with his position as an Illinois State Senator before that: "Dear Sharon:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the expansion of family planning programs. I understand and share your perspective on this critical issue.

We can and must do more to ensure that every woman in every part of our country has real access to quality family planning services. For this reason, I introduced the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act of 2007. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have not exercised the discretion provided in the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005. The DRA limited the categories of providers that could receive nominal drug prices and inadvertently excluded college health centers and many safety net providers from the list of qualifying entities.

Less than 1 year after implementation of the DRA, 3 million college students and hundreds of thousands of low income women are faced with soaring and increasingly unaffordable costs for contraception. This outcome is completely unacceptable. My bill reinstates the status quo; allows, but does not require, drug manufacturers to offer deeply discounted drugs to clinics serving low income women and college students with no implications on the budget.

I also understand the concern that abstinence-only programs are doing a serious disservice to our young people. While it is useful to raise awareness of the virtues of abstinence, that should not be a substitute for providing truthful, medically accurate and age appropriate information about contraception, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and reproductive health in general.

In 2001, President Bush reinstated the Mexico City policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, which restricts funding to family planning assistance organizations that provide abortion services and counseling. Senator Barbara Boxer introduced an amendment to the Appropriations bill for Foreign Operations which effectively revokes the Mexico City policy. This amendment passed in the Senate by a 53 to 41 vote on September 6, 2007. Unfortunately, the House dropped this amendment when the Foreign Operations appropriations bill became a part of the larger omnibus spending package to fund federal government programs for fiscal year 2008.

With bipartisan support, Congress addressed the 12 spending bills, including critical increases in domestic spending through this omnibus bill. However, the Bush Administration chose to put politics above the interests of the people. Threatened by a presidential veto, the House removed this language from the final bill. Be assured that I will keep your priorities on my mind as Congress enters this second session.

Thank you again for contacting me, and please stay in touch.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator"

Thank you Senator Obama.

I would like to say that i love your blog www.blogforchoice.com a lot
now.. back on topic hehe
I cant say that i agree with what you typed up... care to clear things up for me?