The Authenticity Debate: NARAL v. Emily's List

Buried underneath the John Edwards' endorsement of Senator Obama, NARAL endorsed Senator Obama as well, mush to the dismay of many of the group's supporters. The commentators on NARAL's blog rejected and denounced the endorsement. A dozen representatives who endorse Clinton protested the endorsement as being "inappriopriate," "unnecessary," and a "betrayal."

Yet, the worst attack on NARAL's choice is from Emily's List, a pro-choice group that only supports women pro-choice candidates. (Please overlook the multiple forms irony in this.) In response to the NARAL endorsement, Ellen Malcolm, the president of Emily's List, stated:

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.

There are a few lessons to take from this. First, the this is another sign that the nomination process is all but a formality.

Second, the complaints against NARAL provide an example of how primaries concern authenticity and not necessarily endgame. Throughout the campaign there has been a repeated attempt to frame Senator as not being pro-choice or not being pro-choice "enough," followed with an argument that only Senator Clinton can speak for women and issues relating to women (read the comment sections from NARAL's blog). Senator Clinton becomes the only "authentic" choice for these issues and anything else will lead to a compromise on the issue as if no other candidate could speak for that audience or protect that interest, breaking the political synecdoche.

Finally, Malcolm's complaint against NARAL is that the timing of the endorsement is disrespectful to choose Senator Obama now and that this choice must be "disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights." This only perpetuates the problem that only Senator Clinton and female representatives can speak for women or that Obama is not pro-choice enough. Malcolm's comments certainly show disrespect for those who support the cause but don't require the authenticity. As for the timing, if Obama cannot speak for this group then does it matter that this choice occurred now rather than three weeks later? It is not is anything magical will happen that will make Senator Obama more appealing to this group other than the elimination of Clinton from the process.

Further, nothing in the comments by Malcolm explains how the support of Clinton or the timing of the announcement will advance the cause of both Emily's List or NARAL. Shouldn't this be the focus, the issue, and not who works for the issue.