On the heels of NARAL's endorsement of Obama today, Ellen Malcolm of EMILY's List made the following statement in a press release:
"I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them."
Though Malcolm has been hitting this theme pretty hard lately, NARAL's endorsement isn't a betrayal or disrespect. NARAL simply came to terms with the delegate count. In fact, NARAL president Nancy Keenan took pains to note Clinton's excellent record on choice:
"Americans have been fortunate to have two fully pro-choice candidates in the race for the Democratic nomination. But only one can go forward to the general election. It is truly historic for us to have these two outstanding candidates in the race."
Unlike EMILY's List, NARAL has no stated commitment to supporting female pro-choice politicians. As Keenan says, Clinton and Obama both have phenomenal records on this issue. If NARAL truly believed Obama to be the superior candidate on choice, they could have made this endorsement months ago. Such a move would have been far more damaging to Clinton. I do wonder, though, why NARAL chose to endorse now rather than, say, in a few weeks when Clinton may well have dropped out.
--Ann Friedman
