NARAL PAC Endorses Obama, Sparking Controversy

It’s not clear what the NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC intended when it came out strong for Barack Obama, three weeks before the last primary.

At a time when there is much end-game talk and when one component of a November strategy for Obama focuses on courting Hillary Clinton’s women supporters, this would seem to be a blow to that effort.

If anything, NARAL highlighted the divisions in the contemporarywomen’s movement in this presidential campaign, where the national Democratic finalists have been neck-to-neck in popular vote and delegates, with Obama having an edge but with Clinton gaining not just her sea legs but a national reputation for toughness and persistence down to the last vote.

And a huge proportion of over-50 women have stayed with her, including many who write checks to her campaign as well as to pro-choice groups such as NARAL.

In retrospect, NARAL may not have intended the grass roots rebellion that its endorsement sparked, especially at a time when there is much talk about how Obama will need to pay special heed to courting the women’s vote, which has stayed overwhelmingly with Clinton.

Half dozen state NARAL chapters staked out their differences with the Washington-based national headquarters. Some saw it as a gratuitous slap at Clinton that didn’t need to happen.

“Premature,” said the New York state NARAL chapter.

“We strongly disagree” with the decision to endorse at this time, said Washington State’s executive director Karen Cooper, who said both Clinton and Obama are leaders in the right-to-choose movement. Clinton, she noted, has worked closely with her state’s Sen. Patty Murphy “to make birth control more accessible for the women who need it.”

The NARAL endorsement, while praising Clinton, was effusive in its praise of Obama as “a strong advocate for a woman’s right to choose throughout his career in public life. He steadfastly supports and defends a woman’s right to make the most personal, private decisions regarding her reproductive health without interference from government or politicians.”

And more, including his leadership in the Senate “to unite Americans on both sides of this debate behind commonsense, common-ground ways to prevent unintended pregnancy.”

They called him “the candidate of the future” and said Americans “are tired of the divisive politics of the last eight years.”

The political bloggers had a heyday trying to dissect the rationale, calling it:

• An attempt to curry favor with the Obama camp, even at this late date
• A hard-headed political decision to overrule the “second-wave” women still supporting Hillary Clinton to recognize reality, that she can’t win and to back Obama now
• An attempt to deflect the sting of Obama’s nearly 3-1 loss to Clinton in Tuesday’s West Virginia primary (although John Edward’s endorsement trumped that, in the mainstream media)

Obama insiders probably also played a part in the endorsement. NARAL’s original executive director, Karen Mulhauser, has headed a Women for Obama grass roots division of the campaign since last fall. Kate Michaelman, the executive director before the current one, Nancy Keenan, worked for Edwards and when he withdrew, switched to Obama.

Some state NARALs made much of the fact that they were the last to know that the national NAAL PAC had made an endorsement.

Missouri’s Pamela Sumners received so many complaints she prepared arobo-call message to 8,500 state NARAL backers, saying she had warned against an endorsement.

“Many of our members support Senator Clinton. We think it honors her perfect pro-choice record, honors our members who support her and honors the voters who have yet to have their say to let this nomination resolve itself without NARAL’s endorsement,” she said.

Oregon, Texas, Pennsylvania state NARAL chapters also made clear they were staying neutral, not endorsing Obama. In other states, state NARAL offices were getting protest calls.

In New Mexico, one NARAL activist said some callers threatened to cut off their donations to the organization.

Sarah Cleveland of Texas NARAL said in an interview that the national PAC is entirely separate and rarely consults them unless a Texas candidate is at stake. In this case, she said it was not unusual for national NARAL to make its decision unilaterally – but, as a state nonprofit, they could not risk their tax status by endorsing any candidate.