Going After NARAL

This is something that completely and totally boggles the mind.

Last night I made an honest call for peace that I extended to the supporters of Hillary Clinton, and I truly hope that her supporters will take me up on that offer; I think, given Mrs. Clinton’s shift in focus and tone over the past few days, even she would like to see her supporters become more welcoming of Obama.

But to a degree, I expect that the animosity shall continue against Obama at least for a little while.  That’s fine, it’s to be expected.

Yet, I can’t begin to describe the level of dismay I feel as to the targets of some of this wrath, today and in the past.  It’s not enough for these supporters to focus their ire on Obama, or upon a sexist establshment, but there has been a long established pattern at this point to attack a wide host of people who have chosen to give their support and endorsement to Obama.

I am reminded of Carville describing Richardson as a “Judas,” and who can forget the harsh calls of “traitor” when Senator Kennedy endorsed Obama?  But even antipathy towards these men, and John Edwards, I can halfway expect.

What has totally blown me out of the water has been the backlash against NARAL.

Feelings of betrayal have resulted in attacks against the organization from within and without, and I’ll explain why this bothers me so.  Now we find ourselves in a situation where women are actively attacking other women for expressing their opinion.  While NARAL has been called “unconscionable” for its endorsement, I feel that the resulting backlash is itself unconscionable.

It would be a different situation if Obama was this terrible, pro life, anti-women’s right candidate, but he’s not.  In his short time in public office, Senator Obama has fought for women’s rights and reproductive rights, and for anyone who brings up the “present” votes, please, remember, this was a parliamentary procedure that Obama engaged in to help OTHER Illinois legislatures defeat anti-choice measures.

If NARAL endorsed Senator Obama fully knowing that he did not share their values, that could be seen as a betrayal, but it’s not.  We have two candidates who share their position on the issues of women’s rights, and so it becomes a matter of whom you wish to support.  There’s no betrayal here, and the backlash is only a move to stifle the voices of other women whose opinions may differ from those protesting.

This is not how progress is made, people, it’s simply not how things get done.  Please, for the love of everything we’re trying to accomplish here, just stop and breathe for two seconds.

2 Responses to “Going After NARAL”

  1. Tony Smith says:

    I am breathing. And my mind is clear. I am not sure what you are fighting for, but condoning liberal hypocrisy is not on my agenda. Ergo: I will not vote for the Dems this Fall.

  2. Damien says:

    “condoning liberal hypocrisy is not on my agenda. Ergo: I will not vote for the Dems this Fall.”

    So… Explain to me exactly how tacitly allowing John McCain to become president isn’t stabbing the woman’s rights movement, and liberalism in general, in the back? Or are you just a conservative concern troll looking to stir up trouble?

    I certainly hope that’s the case, because if not there are few clearer “cut off the nose to spite the face” moments in modern progressive politics and it’s definitely something you should look in the mirror over.


  1. The Mahablog » The Belittled Woman - [...] the backlash to NARAL’s endorsement has all the markings of an eating-our-own feeding frenzy. Just one more reason the…
  2. Why Women Support Obama | Barack Obama 2008 | positively Barack - [...] response to all the drama over the Obama NARAL endorsement, I thought I would post some of the comments…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook