Moving the Discussion on Choice Forward

Dana Goldstein wonders why NARAL decided to nominate Obama at a point when his nomination is a) technically contested by Clinton but b) functionally secured. They’ve managed to anger their supporters and because of the Edwards endorsement, their endorsement wasn’t even that big of a news story, or a particularly influential one. I think one important reason why they endorsed Obama, one that they openly stated, was that because the nomination is locked up, and the two candidates are essentially identical as far as being pro-choice goes, we desperately need to move the discussion forward. Because last time I checked, the GOP nominee not only says that he wants Roe v Wade overturned, but also wants to appoint justices in the anti-choice mold of Alito and Roberts. NARAL’s desire to move the discussion is particularly important because the one way that Obama can gain support back from female Clinton supporters is by emphasizing how he’s light years better on choice and reproductive rights.

Also, and fewer people in the pro-choice community probably agree with me on this one, but I think that the Clinton campaign had to be sanctioned by some pro-choice organization for her dishonest attacks on Obama’s voting record in the Illinois State Senate. Repeatably, the campaign went after him for voting “present” on abortion-related legislation. What they didn’t mention, however, was that it was a strategy he thought up with Planned Parenthood t counter the political effect that voting “yes” on these bills could have(it didn’t actually effect any legislation being passed). In short, Clinton was attacking Obama on pro-choice grounds for implementing a strategy that the leading choice organization in America thought up. And NARAL consistently defended Obama from these accusations. I don’t know if that had anything to do with their decision to endorse, but it’s certainly something worth considering.