Edwards & NARAL

John Edwards endorsed Obama last night. it’s about time for him to step up and take a leadership role to unite the party. Edwards may be able to help him with the so-called “white blue collar” voters. It’s interesting to see Elizabeth Edwards not with her husband, her preference for Hillary’s Health Care policy is widely known and I wonder if she will stay neutral, back her husband or endorse Hillary? I think it’s important for Obama to adopt the poverty policy issues that Edwards has championed for, because it’s time for the US to start looking at it’s own problem with poverty instead of trying to solve other nations’ problems.

Overall, it was a brilliant tactical move to unveil John Edwards at a campaign stop in Michigan, the day after Hillary’s big victory in WV. They were able to almost upstage her and dominate the news cycle.

This is another sign of the Democratic Party consolidating around it’s eventual nominee. It is time to start the Al Gore watch?

To me, another endorsement last night was just as important, however it drew a lot of fire for the organization. NARAL also endorsed Obama. In case you don’t know who they are, here is a small snippet from their website:

For more than 30 years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the nation’s leading advocate for privacy and a woman’s right to choose.

This is an extremely gutsy move by the organization and they are being tested now. Nancy Keenan discusses the reasons behind the endorsement on Huffington Post. Hillary Clinton supporters have jammed blogs denouncing NARAL’s move. Their reasonings? There are two main ones: One. Loyalty to Hillary, Two. Obama is not clear on his Pro-choice stance and three, how can NARAL endorse a man over a woman.

First off, I don’t believe in loyalty to a single person. I believe in loyalty to the cause. I’m Asian American and I am firmly behind the civil rights movement and firmly pro-choice. I am loyal to the idea of equality and I’m loyal to civil right causes. It’s not about the candidate, it’s about their views and position. I will not back a person because I somehow owe it to them and I certainly will not back a candidate just because of personal loyalty. Endorsing another person is not backstabbing if you do it for the right reasons.

Reason two has been debunked so many times and it’s sad that this misinformation was distributed by a Clinton supporter during the NH primary and it has stuck. I think Hillary supporters were just looking for any excuse to vote against Obama, and this became one even when it’s been clearly debunked. It only shows that some people are simply unwilling to accept truth. A snippet from www.barackobama.com (you can either click on their links or search online to prove it for yourself):

2006: Obama Received A 100 Percent Rating From Planned Parenthood In 2006. [Project Vote Smart]
2005 Obama Received A 100 Percent Rating From NARAL Pro-Choice America In 2005. [Project Vote Smart]

One issue people have is with the amount of “present” votes regarding pro-choice issues: debunked, they were done in coordination w/ Planned Parenthood.

Pam Sutherland Confirmed: Planned Parenthood Says Obama’s Present Votes On Choice Are “Leadership Votes.” “‘We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes,’ Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. ‘We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on ‘partial birth’ and ‘born alive’. They put these bills out all the time . . . because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats…Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting ‘present.’ She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office. ‘He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,’ said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. ‘A present vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted.’ [ABC, 7/17/07]

Emily’s List, a group that endorsed Senator Clinton, said:

EMILY’S List Called Obama’s Remarks “A Rousing Call To Arms, And A Touching Reminder Of Why We Are Doing Everything We Can To Make A Difference By Electing Pro-Choice Democratic Women.” EMILY’S List Insider News reported, “It’s difficult to pinpoint the highlights from this year’s 15th annual Majority Council Conference on May 11 and 12, because there were so many!..This year’s conference was held in conjunction with “Change,” our Washington, D.C., luncheon with more than 1,100 members from the across the country. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama headlined the event. His remarks were a rousing call to arms, and a touching reminder of why we are doing everything we can to make a difference by electing pro-choice Democratic women.” [EMILY'S List Email, Subject: Insider News - Taking control in 2006, 5/19/06]

Quote from a former Clinton supporter,

Lorna Brett, former president of Chicago NOW: “I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and an EMILY’s List donor, but this line of attack is unacceptable. While I was the president of Chicago National Organization for Women, Senator Obama worked closely with us, could not have been more supportive of a woman’s right to choose, and there was no bigger champion in Illinois on our issues. What’s important is that the candidates do not cannibalize each other on issues we all agree about because we need to win in November.”

As a man, it is really not my place to talk about feminism and NARAL’s endorsement. However, as an Asian American, I feel that I have the right to speak on the issue of equality, something that both women’s groups and civil rights groups have strived to achieve. To base decisions based on a single issue, gender, instead of looking at the whole picture is ignorant. It’s hypocritical to seek equality when we can’t see past the barriers ourselves. How do we ask others to say past barriers to equality when we can’t see past it. How can you preach about equality when you condemn another for picking the best candidate instead of the candidate with the right gender?

Before you go off on me, should gender come into play, yes I absolute agree. I have personally argued with people against placing a White man over an Asian American in local non-profit organizations. I would be hypocritical myself if I don’t mention that. In local communities where you need to build leadership, in corporations where you need to increase presence and in government where you need to shape legislation, yes, gender has to play a role, but not the only role. We seek equality for all, not just women and not just for those traditionally disenfranchised. Both Barack and Hillary are equally qualified and equally dedicated to women’s rights. Both belongs to a group that has been on the outside looking in. At this point, is it fine to just vote for the woman instead who you think is the best candidate? If you vote against the woman, does that make you in anyway sexist or against the movement? I think not. To say that you must select Hillary because of her gender is wrong, just like voting for Barack only because he is African American is wrong. Gender issues is not more or less important than other issues like poverty and racism. Malcolm of Emily’s List said that NARAL’s endorsement of Obama is disrepectful to Senator Clinton. I say that the criticism against NARAL are disrepectful to Obama’s pro-choice ideologies and disrespectful to the millions of pro-choice men and women that have lined up behind Senator Obama.

The issue here for NARAL comes down to the nomination. Who is the most likely nominee, who is the best person to shape the Democratic Party and who is the best name on the ticket.

I believe that NARAL endorsed Barack Obama, not because he is a man or bi-racial, but because he is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, and to win in November, we must unite behind the nominee. I quote Nancy Keenan in her post on huffington post here,

Further, I believe Sen. Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. He leads in pledged delegates, superdelegates, the popular vote, and cash-on-hand. As a former elected official, I know that having the three “m’s” of a campaign – money, message and manpower (or womanpower!) – are how we win elections. Sen. Obama will be our next president.

NARAL understands that the future of America and women’s rights rest in a united Democratic Party. John McCain in office will mean a huge step backwards not just in civil rights, but also for women’s choice. This endorsement is about circling the wagon and consolidating power behind the Democratic nominee and start the general election battle now instead of in August.

For all you Hillary supporters, I understand your pain at this move by NARAL. Could they have done this better? Should they have stayed neutral in the face of two pro-choice candidates? Would women feel better about themselves if NARAL stayed neutral or do they want them to endorse Hillary like Emily’s List and Choice Matters? Perhaps, but in Nancy’s words they had to make this move now because they see the gender divide already and they want to move to unite us now.

Finally, NARAL Pro-Choice America, as the political leader of the pro-choice movement, felt it was time to take a leadership role. We have been so fortunate to have two fully pro-choice candidates running for the Democratic nomination and to that end, we’ve consistently praised both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama for their leadership in standing up for women’s reproductive rights. We continue to look forward to working with them in the future. But, for the sake of the reproductive-rights movement, we need to put any perceived differences behind us, and get to work putting Sen. Obama in the White House. We want to let women know that, no doubt about it, we have trust and confidence in Obama’s ability and willingness to fight for a woman’s right to choose. He’s already proven himself in that regard.

This election needs to be about a united Democratic Party. Attacks on NARAL from groups like Emily’s List does nothing but further the gender divide in the party. If groups and supporters like Emily’s List truly believe that John McCain is a better president for woman’s rights, then they should stay on their soap box and attack supporters of Obama. I believe that once this primary season ends and Obama is the nominee, Emily’s List will rally behind Obama and take the same position that NARAL has taken. I refuse to believe that the gender issue is strong enough for people like Malcolm of Emily’s List to not support Obama when the time comes. I refuse to believe that the pro-choice women of America are willing to put their personal feelings above their own self interests, namely equality and choice.

I think we need to stop overreacting and continue to support organizations like NARAL and Emily’s List, continue to work towards a Democratic majority in Congress and continue to work to elect a Democrat as the next President of the United States of Amreica.