And They're Eating Their Young
Talk about losing sight of the broader mission. Emily's List shows in the statement released today by the group that there is indeed festering friction in the pro-choice community over the Dem primary. Following NARAL Pro-Choice America's endorsement today of Barack Obama, Emily's founder Ellen Malcolm, who serves as national co-chairwoman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, released this blistering statement:
“I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”
Earlier in the primaries, Emily's went after Obama for those pesky "present" votes he cast on choice-related bills while an IL state senator. Why? The group's spokeswomen said he showed a lack of commitment to reproductive health rights for women. Planned Parenthood of IL in turn assured reporters that Obama had voted "present" at the group's request as part of a strategy to help Dems from moderate districts beg off a vote on a bill that wouldn't ultimately pass. The votes alone, however, would have given the GOP ammo to run against those Dems, who could have been targeted for saying no to a partial birth abortion ban, for example.
Dividing the Dems on the choice issue for the sake of Clinton's doomed candidacy is terribly dangerous. Women voters deserve the truth about Obama's views on choice and his record. Muddying that conversation and sparking an intra-party feud at just the moment the two camps need to unite women, in particular, for the sake of the party come November can only be described as startlingly myopic, a Kamikaze mission.
(JENNIFER SKALKA)
What entitles Ellen Malcolm to issue these "my way or the highway" pronouncements? And how exactly is NARAL "not letting Hillary finish the final three weeks"? They can endorse whoever they want, whenever they want, just like Malcolm can. When Malcolm endorsed Hillary, did anybody whine that she "wasn't letting Obama finish the primary campaign" before taking sides? What nonsense.
EMILY's List is just another cog in the Beltway machine with an inflated sense of self-importance. Get over yourself.
Dividing the Dems on the choice issue for the sake of Clinton's doomed candidacy is terribly dangerous.
Pontificate away, On Call. As usual, you've missed the fact that NARAL has very little credibility in the pro-choice community. They endorsed Joe Lieberman and had a hand in giving us Justice Sam Alito. NARAL is both naive and incompetent.
You really think this decision is going to unite women? Your analysis is startlingly myopic.
Ms. Skalka:
Please report the news, do not opionate. It is not "dangerous" nor do the "two camps need to unite." Your language sounds like an advocate, not a reporter. In some people's views, it is dangerous for NARAL to take this middle-of-the road position for a candidate who missed votes on key issues. In others' views, any pro-choice position is bad and Democratic infighting is good. To do proper reporting, be objective. Imagine if this were a feud between pro-life evangelicals and nominally pro-life economic conservatives. Would you have written the following?
"Dividing the Republicans on the abortion issue for the sake of Huckabee's doomed candidacy is terribly dangerous. Evangelcial voters deserve the truth about McCain's views on abortion and his record. Muddying that conversation and sparking an intra-party feud at just the moment the two camps need to unite evangelicals, in particular, for the sake of the party...."
I doubt we read this a couple of months ago, or if we did, it certainly wasn't written in the un-objective way you have written it.
Ms. Skalka:
Please report the news, do not opionate. It is not "dangerous" nor do the "two camps need to unite." Your language sounds like an advocate, not a reporter. In some people's views, it is dangerous for NARAL to take this middle-of-the road position for a candidate who missed votes on key issues. In others' views, any pro-choice position is bad and Democratic infighting is good. To do proper reporting, be objective. Imagine if this were a feud between pro-life evangelicals and nominally pro-life economic conservatives. Would you have written the following?
"Dividing the Republicans on the abortion issue for the sake of Huckabee's doomed candidacy is terribly dangerous. Evangelcial voters deserve the truth about McCain's views on abortion and his record. Muddying that conversation and sparking an intra-party feud at just the moment the two camps need to unite evangelicals, in particular, for the sake of the party...."
I doubt we read this a couple of months ago, or if we did, it certainly wasn't written in the un-objective way you have written it.
Clinton takes Indiana by a ‘razor’ and Obama wins North Carolina by a huge margin. Nevertheless, Kentucky, Montana and West Virginia are still to come.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates
If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama
If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com
Obama Supporters:
Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy...
Clinton Supporters too …. !
It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !
Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It's that easy...
There you go again, forgetting about objective journalism. NARAL has endorsed "pro-choice" Republican senators who then turn around and vote for right wing Supreme Court justices. This was a stupid thing for NARAL to do; they could have waited a few more weeks and not torn their base apart. NARAL is the group suffering from myopia here, not Emily's List.