Redstate

Again, with the Pratchett references.

By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | Abortion | NARAL | The Best Democratic Primary EVER — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

How totally uncool of me.

Anyway, it would appear (via Ed Morrissey of Hot Air) that we've got ourselves a Blue-on-Blue kind of firefight going on:

NARAL reeling from Obama endorsement
By BETH FRERKING | 5/16/08 2:02 PM EST

With the clock running down on a long-fought primary, NARAL Pro-Choice America leaders sent state affiliates reeling this week by endorsing Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. It was seen as a gratuitous slap in the face to a longtime ally, and it sparked a fear even closer to home: that the move will alienate donors loyal to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Many on this week’s conference call were stunned on learning the news, making urgent pleas for the group to remain neutral until after the June 3 Democratic primaries.

“It’s created a firestorm,” said NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin, who was on the conference call. “Everyone was mystified ... saying, ‘What is the upside for the organization? And, frankly, [there was] a lot of concern about the donor base. ... There was real concern there would be a backlash.”

There was a backlash, and it was swift, starting with NARAL’s own website. At last count, there were more than 3,300 comments in an electronic chat about the endorsement, the overwhelming majority of them negative. “Shame shame shame!” read one, with many correspondents threatening never to support NARAL financially again. “No more donations from me!!!” wrote another.

Not quite up to five exclamation points yet (yup, yet one more Pratchett reference), but give them time.

Read on.

I don't often discuss abortion issues here - by the standards of a lot of people here I'm barely pro-life, both in my position and in the relative importance in which I hold it - but this isn't really about abortion: it's about advocacy groups, and the people who run them. It's kind of amusing to see state NARAL chapters freak out about how the national chapter ignored them*, given that this is somewhat similar to what union leadership does routinely. Not that NARAL members want to hear that what happened to them is just like what happens to Republican union members all the time. And not that anybody in NARAL particularly wants to hear that they're supporting a group whose primary goal in life is now to increase its power in the Democratic Party.

Yes, that's pretty much what's happening here. Ed put it best:

...but obviously that wasn’t their motivation. They wanted to send a message to Hillary to get out of the race now, rather than ride out the short string of primaries left. NARAL wants to show some muscle in the party’s operations, and doesn’t mind throwing Hillary under the bus to do so. Instead, they have enraged their base of women who have seen Hillary as their champion both in this race and on the mission of NARAL itself — and see her opponent as an Obama-come-lately, an ally but certainly not someone who has done the trench work that Hillary has done over a long period of years.

Ed also notes that the timing was off on this - which is to be expected, really: NARAL President Nancy Keenan has a history of spending her group's political capital unwisely. I'd recommend that NARAL members do something about that, except of course that most of the website (including the Directors, probably) would glare at me if I even presumed to try...

Moe Lane

*I see no reason to humor Beth Shipp's excuse of federal legislation prohibiting their consultation or coordination with state groups; such things can be worked around. That they weren't in this case is kind of indicative.