:: Is NARAL just there to decorate the office?

I woke up this morning still in a tizzy about Obama's idiot statements about abortion over the weekend. So I headed over to the "Equality Means Choice" group on my.barackobama.com. I was pleased to see this at the top of the discussion list - and they are none too pleased. I'll join with them and send my scathing comment to the campaign to suggest they pull the candidate's head out of his ass and actually consult with some skilled pro-choice leaders that have publicly affiliated themselves with the campaign.

However, it is not at all clear that these "advisors" will actually be of any help. This is from the AP story on Obama's idiot statement:

In a statement, NARAL Pro-Choice said Obama's magazine interview is consistent with Roe v. Wade.

"Sen. Obama has consistently said he supports the tenets set forth by Roe, and has made strong statements against President Bush's Federal Abortion Ban, which does not have an exception to protect a woman's health," the organization's statement said.

"No! Really! He's going to be ok! We promise!" Wow. Once again NARAL has shown that they are so desperate for political relevance that they will undermine their own positions.
In case you forgot what those were (they clearly did), AP will helpfully remind you:

The official position of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group that endorsed Obama in May, states: "A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family."

Sadly, the opposition defended Obama better than his own pro-choice "advisors":

A leading abortion opponent, however, said Obama's rhetoric does not match his voting record and his previously stated views on abortion rights.

David N. O'Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama's remarks to the magazine "are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about." [emphasis mine]

"You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade," O'Steen said.

Jill at Feministe has a nice post on this topic - so much more articulate than I find myself capable of being. Read more!

:: The Massive Tool(s) Report

Oh my god. These people are such massive tools.

First: the geniuses at Slate's "XX blog" - who have been bashing Hillary for months on end with every anti-feminist talking point to come out of the Obama campaign, but still call themselves feminists - are doing a live-interactive-web thingy at the ever-repellent (sorry, Buffy) Washington Post. I'll cut to the chase - check out this exchange, with a few formatting changes added because I can't help myself:

Edwardsville, Illinois:

I'm a big fan of Meghan O'Rourke's writing, but when she wrote that "Clinton's relationship to gender seemed at turns angry and deeply ambivalent" in contrast to Obama's relationship to race, I had to laugh.

Meghan, have you read "Dreams of My Father" or "Audacity of Hope"? If so, do you really believe that Obama's relationship to race is anything but "angry and deeply ambivalent?" I think the whole controversy with Rev. Wright arose from just that anger and ambivalence, and my Senator's quest to reconcile himself with race.

I also don't think his anger and ambivalence (or hers) ought to be counted as a negative. Shouldn't we all be angry about the role of race and gender in our society, still, after all this time? Aren't women all amibivalent about the impact our gender does or should have on our life choices? What do you think?

Meghan O'Rourke:

That's a really good point, and my only excuse is that I was writing overnight on deadline!

What I was trying to say, more precisely, was that in her demeanor on the campaign trail, Hillary (to my eyes) didn't manage to seem as open and humble about her situation as Obama did.

Obama is deeply ambivalent in those books: you're totally right. But on the stump he seemed willing to admit how hard it was for him -- and to have chosen to let people see how hard it was for him. So there's an ambivalence there, yes, but he managed to project a somewhat unified front ABOUT that ambivalence.

Whereas I felt Hillary switched back and forth more. Part of what I was getting at, or wanted to, IS that women do feel ambivalent and angry. And I nderstand Hillary's ambivalence and anger -- I really do. And I feel I've acted the way she has, writ small, in situations where I've felt chagrined that men seem to be given more authority by default.

But I do think it's the real challenge for women: how to care deeply about women's rights and equality while not becoming embittered.

And let's face the unfair, bitter truth: I, like many women, probably hold Hillary to a higher standard than I would many men. I wish that weren't the case, and I strive against it. But I'm sure I'm complicit in the double standard.

Like I said - what a tool.

Our next entry comes from yesterday's New York Times "Caucus" blog. Its the very patronizing item "For Clinton's Women Fans, Mourning and Anger." Here's your sign:

For many of these women, it was not just a matter of politics, but of identity. Older, more affluent, and often business-minded, Mrs. Clinton’s live audience last night resembled a more mature version of the cast of “Sex and the City.” Still, while they may be wearing Donna Karan and look as if life has treated them well, many said her struggle to gain the nomination -– and the insults they believe Mrs. Clinton has endured along the way – mirrors their own struggles in life and in the corporate world.

I can't muster anything more articulate; these fools have plumb worn me out. Please, someone else do it. Read more!

:: My baloney has a first name; it's N-A-R-A-L

This was so amazingly lame I felt it deserved it's own blogpost and not just a comment on ciccina's. Here's the transcript from the web chat NARAL held yesterday in response to the tremendous backlash that followed their endorsement of Barack Obama for president. Some of the questions seem pretty clearly planted by members of the NARAL staff. But most questioners really tried to get NARAL to be straightforward about why they were jumping on the Obama bandwagon at this late date.

Craig:

Was it really necessary to endorse Sen. Obama before the primary ended when both candidates are pro-choice? Can't NARAL criticize Sen. McCain's record on choice without having to simultaneously support only one Democrat?

Elizabeth Shipp:

The vast majority of voters still don’t know just how pro-choice Barack Obama is and how anti-choice John McCain has been during the quarter-century he has been in Washington, DC. Many voters who may be inclined to support McCain don’t know his positions on specific issues, particularly his consistent opposition to a woman’s right to choose. They believe instead that John McCain is a “moderate” and a “maverick” so assume he must be pro-choice.

Senator Obama needs an organization like ours to help close the identification gap with key voting constituencies before the fall campaign begins in earnest and people’s opinions are already formed about the two candidates. We can help ensure a pro-choice victory in November, but only if we act now.

Without a clear Democratic nominee, Sen. John McCain has been getting a free ride with the media, and a critical voting bloc that could very well swing the election: pro-choice Independent and Republican women. These women could very well make the difference between a pro-choice president in the White House and another four years of anti-choice policies from John McCain.

With our endorsement, John McCain’s free ride ends.

Sadly, no matter how many different ways the questions was asked, Shipp and Keenan stuck to their unsatisfying talking points. The comments on the chat reflect that readers found it as unsatisfying as I did:

By Hillary or Bust on May 16, 2008 5:38 PM

Wow...that chat was just...scary. I don't know if you are just rationalizing, naive, or downright stupid. And I don't believe for a minute that you thought carefully enough about the potential for backlash in your decision.

By Sarah Taby on May 16, 2008 9:12 PM

I just read the transcript of your contrived web talk. That was rediculous. Your organization and Nancy made no sense and continue to make no sense. Why can't you confess that you made a huge mistake? I think the many people who have expressed their anger at your endorsement should join together and protest in front of your headquarters until you accept your mistake and acknowledge our feelings in a more real and less paranizing manar. I want one of you talking heads to really address our disgust and anger!

A number of the commenters were appropriately ticked by Keenan's response to POLITICO, basically telling angry Clinton supporters (and even Obama supporters) to get over themselves. "In response to the current controversy, Keenan says people will get over their 'broken hearts.'" Oh, yeah. That'll bring 'em back to you, Nancy! The article is a fine read. NARAL may have been trying to ensure their place in the new administration, but they have succeeded in pissing off a number of women leaders on the Hill. Good job! That should help the movement! Read more!

:: Shame on NARAL

With one despicable endorsement, Nancy Keenan puts the last nail in NARAL's coffin.

First, let's get one thing straight: NARAL is irrelevant. Those of us within the movement who have had the misfortune of attending their yearly galas know its more like a wake than a celebration. Gone are the clusters of members of Congress and celebrities.

Gone are the tables featuring the big-dog presidents of major organizations. What's left are a bunch of interns and low level staff sent to fill up the seats at the tables their employers paid for. NARAL has virtually no grassroots and they've been invisible so far in the presidential race. We all knew that when Kate left NARAL was going to go D-List. But I didn't think things would end in such a embarrassing way.

As I'm sure you know, they've endorsed Obama. I could not be more disgusted. I guess they forgot that they are supposed to support champions for choice, not just the guy who fills out the questionnaire okay. I guess they have forgotten how important ICPD is, VAWA, SCHIP and so on. I note that in NARAL's endorsement statement they don't list any substantial accomplishments Obama has made on women's issues.

Apparently none of that matters.

And apparently Obama's squirmy position on choice has been forgotten too. So let's refresh our memories, shall we? I'll point back to three previous entries at the Canary that discuss this problem.

First there are his answers at last month's Compassion Forum in Gratham, Pennsylvania. To be clear, he refers to himself as pro-choice. But he also uses language that should worry women's rights advocates. It should worry them because the point of using waffle language like this is to imply that you would be willing to deal around the edges. He sounds very uncomfortable - like he's trying to squirm around the questions.

"I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past."

There is also this answer to a question about life beginning at conception:

"What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

Pondering moral issues is fine in the context of personal decisions. When it comes to legal frameworks, "moral weight" sounds a lot like something you balance against a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Actually, it reminds me Justice Kennedy's dreadful opinion from the last time SCOTUS took this up.

How about this, from the RH Reality Check candidate questionnaire:

Question: Does (the candidate) support any restrictions on abortion, or does s/he believe it should be entirely up to women?

Obama's answer: Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade."

Again, every restriction we have on the books has been considered by the Supreme Court to be consistent within Roe's framework.

Again, not a leader. Not a champion.

And neither is NARAL. Say goodnight, Nancy.

Read more!

:: All right I've had just about enough of you people

Seriously. If I have to watch yet another dumb-ass Democratic political male tearfully apologize for something he knew was wrong while he'd been doing it for years, I'm going to join the Southern Baptist Convention. And if I have to read yet another 3rd wave feminist screed about how all the second wave feminists are thoughtless bigots, I am just going to vote for McCain. And finally, if I have to read again about how a Clinton supporter has made an idiotic or misguided comment, I'm going to vote for Ralph Nader. Happily, I don't have to respond to any of these because since everyone must have something to say in response to somebody's article or blog, someone has already responded for me. But still, I'm about to declare myself an election-free zone. Wake me when we've got a nominee.

Instead, I choose to meditate on issues like whether baby koalas can hold their own eucalyptus leaves.
Tiny Baby Koala


Ahhh...that's better....
Read more!