Was it Something They Said?

So NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed Obama today.

And, wow, serious recriminations ensue.  The comments on the NARAL web site -- both in terms of quantity and vehemence -- strongly suggest that a nerve was struck among core supporters of the organization.  They are, I think, well worth a look -- they are at least ninety percent negative, many, if not most, threaten to drop financial support from NARAL, and some are extremely negative towards Obama.  The feeling that seems to leap from the pages is a palpable sense of betrayal.

My sense is that there may be a generational component to this phenomenon.  Many women who are Hillary Clinton's contemporaries cannot fathom how what they perceive to be a women's organization could turn its back on one of their own before the nomination has been decided.  Evidently major Clinton (and NARAL) financial backers have threatened to withhold support in the future. 

I am not sure what the institutional imperatives were that made NARAL make its - ahem - choice.  It will be interesting to see whether this blows over once the primaries end or if this is going to undermine one of the leading reproductive rights organizations in the country.    

   

Comments

[Ari]

I think that women, particularly women of a certain generation, feel like Obama has jumped the queue. It was Clinton's turn, they believe, and Obama stepped ahead of her, despite having less experience, etcetera (or so the argument goes). That there has been an incredible amount of misogyny wafting around the blogosphere and the airwaves has only deepened the impression of bad acts for these women. And still worse than all of that, Obama has cast himself and been cast by others as a golden boy, and therfore is a man benefitting from cultural positioning unavailabe to women. Who, if they're ambitious, brilliant, and young often are cast as grasping bitches who'll stop at nothing in order to succeed. For all of these reasons, I hope that good Democrats will be sensitive to the Clinton supporters who feel aggrieved. It has to hurt and hurt badly that Senator Clinton has lost, especially for women who believed that a woman would finally be president. And lord knows that it's about time.

[janinsanfran]

Ari -- I think you've said that very well. Clinton has never been my choice, but I work with a lot of Clinton supporters and I think you've caught what is going on. One more factor -- they didn't know until very recently that she was going to lose. She has been telling them that she is viable and they aren't delegate counting political junkies, so they didn't know until the media turned.

[Corvus9]

It seems like NARAL is always undermining itself (Joe Lieberman), yet it keeps on being NARAL, one of the two top Pro-Choice organizations in the country, along with Planned Parenthood. There's really no competition. It's organizational roots are too strong. It's like a major political party: it doesn't fall apart, it just changes.

[Marcin Tustin]

Perhaps they thought it would be best to cosy up to the next president?

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

I think they just decided that they wanted this thing to end, and that continuing it would only help McCain.

[litbrit]

As a forty-seven-year-old woman who has given money to NARAL and who believes that reproductive rights must be protected and, lately, fought for; and, as a woman who at one point was thrilled at the prospect of having a woman president, I have to say, I am NOT party to that vitriolic anti-Obama sentiment at all (as readers know.) In addition to having a uterus, I have a brain that enables me to see past the immediate and superficial. If one truly believes that men and women are equal, then it should not matter what sex the next president is--one chooses the best human being for the job. I happen to think that person is Barack Obama: thoughtful, intelligent, nuance-appreciating man who is married to a thoughtful, intelligent, nuance-appreciating woman attorney and who is the father of two daughters.

[Sir Charles]

D.

I don't count you as among Hillary's contemporaries. (And no that's not shameless flattery).

In my anecdotal observation, there is a pronounced generational divide in the women's community in DC that I see -- the women between say 55 and 65 who have been the leadership generation and really present at the creation so to speak in terms of reproductive rights and feminist politics identify fully with Hillary and are deeply invested in her campaign. Really deeply.

The younger generation of women seem more open to the Obama candidacy and are often in conflict with the first group anyway because of issues associated with power in the community -- whose got it and who wants it.

People in our bracket -- the 40 somethings -- seem to break both ways, but also seem to possess a healthy skepticism about both candidates.

[Stephen]

It's slightly possible that there isn't a generational problem here. It's also possible that the famous Clinton sense of entitlement doesn't always and necessarily apply to each and every one of Hillary's supporters - nor even to the Clintons themselves, but that's an argument for another day.

Obama's pro-choice record is pretty good, especially from NARAL's point of view. But this is one issue where the experience argument might really matter. Hillary was a focal point in the war against choice when she was First Lady, and instead of backing down on issues relating to women - mustn't be polarizing, you know - she fought back pretty hard.

Hillary has actually written and sponsored legislation that pertains to the pro-choice movement. Obama hasn't done either, IIRC. Her Senate webpage devotes a section to women's issues. Obama's doesn't.

I'm not trying to say that Obama won't fight for choice. I believe he will. Nor do I focus more on pro-choice issues than others, though it's safe to say that the people who post at NARAL probably do. They make their political decisions based upon what they think will be the best for women's right to choose, and Hillary is clearly the better of two good choices.

It's a good move politically to get behind the next President now and to start focusing on McCain. But political expediency usually inspires some anger, and I don't think we need to assume that the real reason behind it is Obama's lack of a vagina or the differences between 1st wave and 3rd wave feminism or whatever.

[J.W. Hamner]

When I talked to my mother, who is of Clinton's age, before she voted in the Maryland primary, I was shocked when she said "I just don't think America is ready to vote for a woman to be president." I was like you think they'd vote for the black guy before they'd vote for a woman? She said yes. That was sort of eye opening for me since I was one of those people who thought we were sort of "post feminism"... still some lingering issues, but the heavy lifting had been done, right? After that conversation, and paying closer attention to the misogyny that's been flying out there I've come to appreciate her point of view a lot more. The NARAL commenters seem a lot like my mom, but, uhm, a lot angrier about it... and I think it's a big mistake for us Obama supporters to think this is just going to go away this summer, and it's a good reason to seriously consider HRC as VP despite all the drawbacks. I don't think I really want to throw my mom under the bus just because Jim Webb can counter the War Hero vibe. Something to think about.

[Sir Charles]

Stephen,

I hope I was clear that I wasn't in any way condemning the Hillary supporters here -- I completely understand where they are coming from and the fact that Hillary has been a strong advocate for both reproductive rights and the rights of women for a long time merits some kind of reciprocal loyalty. Believe me, as a labor movement guy, I understand how powerful such loyalty is.

The generational divide may be an oversimplification, but it is something I have watched first hand. (Hey you're talking to a guy who was once giving directions on the phone to Kate Michelman while simultaneously mixing a drink for Eleanor Smeal -- true story.) Again, this is not gender specific -- it happens in all organizations and movements, where the younger people are anxious to advance and the older people tend to like to hang on to power.)

J.W.

The misogyny is real and deeply disquieting. I was actually driving behind a car a couple of weeks ago with a bumper sticker with Hillary's face on it and the slogan "Life's a bitch - Don't elect one." Utterly fucking charming.

[Stephen]

I hope I was clear that I wasn't in any way condemning the Hillary supporters here

No, of course not. And while I know that there's definite generational politics at play, I do think it's a bit of an oversimplification to chalk the anger at NARAL's endorsement up to that.

[Joe]

We were having dinner a month or so ago with a 55ish woman who literally lives a block down from Obama. When his name came up, she got visibly agitated. We quickly changed the topic. It was a little eye-opening. I suspect that she has voted for Obama nine times in her life (primaries and general for state senate in 1994, 1998, 2002; U.S. House primary in 2000; and primary and general for U.S. Senate in 2004), yet the mere thought that he would take the nomination from Clinton made her incensed.

I've never seen the numbers, but I would suspect that white women over 50 (55? 60?) break for Clinton at roughly the same rate that African-Americans break for Obama. I'd actually be curious to see what the "white working class" numbers are if you strip out these voters.

[Ari]

Upon reading the comments here, I should have been much clearer that I was talking about those women (and some men) who have supported Clinton and are now hurting badly. I was just trying to respond to Charles's post about the level of anger over the NARAL endorsement. In other words, I did not mean that all women, even of a particular generation, have a special affinity for Senator Clinton or any other woman running for office. I regret my error.