CNN is reporting that John Edwards is announcing his support for Obama tonight in Michigan. “Obama will come on stage in Grand Rapids and say he has a special guest to introduce, followed by the appearance of Edwards himself,” CNN says on its ‘political ticker.’
Posted: May. 14. 2008 at 4:25 PM EDT
Digg This
You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
Even some NARAL affiliates are saying that you are wrong, and believe that the parent organization in fact gave Obama an endorsement over Hillary:
"NARAL Pro-Choice America affiliates in key swing and primary states are openly distancing themselves from the decision by NARAL Pro-Choice America to endorse Illinois Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for president.
"Since yesterday's announcement, NARAL groups in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, Texas and New York -- Clinton's home state -- have issued statements signaling their continued neutrality in the Democratic race and emphasizing that the national group did not speak for them on this matter. These groups represent nearly a quarter of NARAL's state chapters."
You really should not allow your political emotions to blind you to the actual facts; face it: NARAL gave Hillary a swift kick in the a@@.
What gives you the impression that I am anti-Clinton? And surely you can't fault me for accepting Hillary's representation as true that the primary is far from over; after all, she usually is so sincere.
Oddly enough, in your zeal to continue being anti-Clinton, you've accepted the Clinton campaign's rhetoric about this primary not being over. They're wrong. You're wrong. It's done. It's over. Barack Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for President.
NARAL's endorsement is proof that they have accepted that fact. Read Nancy Kennan's reasoning on Huffington Post, she makes the point explicitly: "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."
Clinton supporters are wrong to call it a betrayal and Obama supporters are wrong to call it a victory of Hillary. It's a victory for the cause over John McCain.
Why did NARAL issue an endorsement for Obama -- but not Hillary -- with respect to the general election against McCain, and why did NARAL make this endorsement for Obama during the Democratic primary which Hillary contends still is far from over? Accordingly, your statement that "NARAL didn't endorse in the primary" is factually incorrect, and ignores reality. It's an endorsement by NARAL for Obama over Hillary regardless of how you attempt to spin it.
Your comment is factually inaccurate. NARAL didn't endorse in the primary because a number of the Democratic candidates have strong pro-choice records. This endorsement is about the general election: Barack Obama versus John McCain. And if you're pro-choice, the candidate for you is clear: Barack Obama.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, as the text of the endorsement reiterated.