Press Release - National Organization for Women

Not Every Woman Supports Abortion Rights

August 29, 2008

Statement of NOW PAC Chair Kim Gandy on the Selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's Vice Presidential Pick

Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate is a cynical effort to appeal to disappointed Hillary Clinton voters and get them to vote, ultimately, against their own self-interest.

Gov. Palin may be the second woman vice-presidential candidate on a major party ticket, but she is not the right woman. Sadly, she is a woman who opposes women's rights, just like John McCain.

The fact that Palin is a mother of five who has a 4-month-old baby, a woman who is juggling work and family responsibilities, will speak to many women. But will Palin speak FOR women? Based on her record and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No.

In a gubernatorial debate, Palin stated emphatically that her opposition to abortion was so great, so total, that even if her teenage daughter was impregnated by a rapist, she would "choose life" -- meaning apparently that she would not permit her daughter to have an abortion.

Palin also had to withdraw her appointment of a top public safety commissioner who had been reprimanded for sexual harassment, although Palin had been warned about his background through letters by the sexual harassment complainant.

What McCain does not understand is that women supported Hillary Clinton not just because she was a woman, but because she was a champion on their issues. They will surely not find Sarah Palin to be an advocate for women.

Sen. Joe Biden is the VP candidate who appeals to women, with his authorship and championing of landmark domestic violence legislation, support for pay equity, and advocacy for women around the world.

Finally, as the chair of NOW's Political Action Committee, I am frequently asked whether NOW supports women candidates just because they are women. This gives me an opportunity to once again answer that question with an emphatic 'No.' We recognize the importance of having women's rights supporters at every level but, like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women's rights.

The State of the Race and Dispelling Media Myths

With the Democratic National Convention set to kick off in Denver, polls are being released galore to provide a baseline before the most condensed and eventful two weeks in recent political history commences. One poll that caught my attention today was the Washington Post/ABC News poll that was conducted late last week, it provides many details on a host of questions and shows that much of the media narrative is non-sense.

Let’s first get down to the pure brass tacks of the poll, which I consider one of the more reputable ones out there, mainly because they’re more transparent about their methodology and release detailed information broken down by demographic.

Obama leads McCain 48-42% in a four way contest (With Nader and Barr) among likely voters, which is basically where the race has been, sans some minor ebbs in both directions, for months. Despite the much talked about negative (and allegedly, effective) attacks by John Sidney McCain III, Obama still sports a 62-34% favorable rating (McCain’s is a robust 59-37% as well). In comparison, at this point in 2004, John Kerry’s favorable rating was only in the +10% range and never did exceed a 55% favorable rating…while Obama, after a much more bruising primary, is flirting with 2:1 territory and one that is extraordinary stable.

Let’s talk about some other myths that this poll puts to rest:

Obama isn’t connecting on the economy

He leads McCain on the economy by a 50-39% margin.

McCain is killing Obama on the drilling issue!

Obama leads 49-42% on Energy issues.

Additionally, Obama is keeping McCain’s advantage among terrorism to a mere 52-38% margin, is tied with him with Iraq and taxes; and sports a double digit lead in social issues.

Here’s another myth:

Obama is underperforming the usual Democratic strength among whites, women, and Hispanics.

While John Kerry lost whites by a 41-58% margin (From 1992-2004, the Democratic nominee ranged from 39-42% of the white vote), Obama only trails McCain 49-43% among whites; and that’s with a decent amount of undecideds and at least a fraction of those will break for Obama. Obama leads among women 55-37% over performing John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton’s margin among females, sometimes by significant margins.

Of course, married women are a real weakness for Obama, right? All those angry Hillary supporters will harm his candidacy fatally, no? He leads 48-44, a group that voted for Bush by 11 points four years ago.

Well then, naturally whites making less than 50K are a weakness for Obama? Well he leads by a 49-40% margin, where Kerry lost this group by 7 points.
As for Hispanics, he overperforms Kerry by a significant margin as well, leading 61-27% among the group that Kerry only got 57% with. A particular strong showing against a Southwestern Senator from a border state, who is a moderate on immigration.

Obama has even made significant strides among traditionally Republican voters. While George Bush won White Evangelicals by a 78-21% margin, Obama has cut the GOP advantage to a 65-27% margin; a near twenty point swing. He is also polling double what John Kerry did among self-described Republicans. While he still faces insurmountable deficits among those groups, in a close election those are significant number of votes gained.

While I know the storyline of working class white Americans and other groups that Obama underperformed with in the primary not supporting a black candidate is intriguing, it just isn’t based in the data.

While, it is still a tight race, it is a static one and one that still favors Senator Obama. This race has potential to be fluid soon though, with two conventions in the next ten days. But for now, the media coverage is fundamentally not honest. No wonder, since the media is in the tank for John Sidney McCain III. And why wouldn’t they be? He cooks BBQ for them at his retirement estate in Sedona, AZ.

But let’s be honest about the state of the race.

Bayhwatch: Veepstakes Vigil on the Beaches of Hawaii

There are numerous reports (or are they just speculations?) in the blogosphere today that Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) will make his way to Hawaii this week to meet with the vacationing Barack Obama. The only rational purpose for such a rendezvous is, of course, that Mr. Obama has decided to choose the Hoosier Democrat as his running-mate. 

I am not sure if Bayh is en route to Hawaii or not. Heck, he could already be there for all I know. Remember how skillful the Obama campaign was at outwitting the press corps on the night of Obama's first meeting with Senator Clinton after he had wrapped up the Democratic nomination? The embedded press was whisked away to Chicago as Washington-based reporters were put on the false trail of staking out Senator Clinton's DC home. Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton were having a quiet, very private, tete-a-tete at California Senator Diane Feinstein's Washington home.

ElectBlue has learned from well-placed sources in the Obama campaign that this is decision week on the Vice-Presidential running mate. While in Hawaii this week, Obama will decide who his VP will be. The unanswered question is, when will the Illinois Senator make the announcement? I'm betting sooner rather than later. Will it, in fact, be Evan Bayh? His odds have gone up, in my view, in recent weeks. 

For those who've read my previous blogs about the VP options for Obama, I am checking out some old recipe books for the best ways to prepare crow. I'm thinking maybe deep-fried...

Reagan, Carville and KISS

I think it likely that the 2008 presidential contest will hinge on the ability of one side or the other to reduce the campaign to one simple, clear message. This was the case in two other recent change elections where the underlying dynamics favored the challenger, but the incumbent candidate (or party) attempted to raise voters' doubts about the risks of voting for change. 

Consider Reagan versus Carter in 1980 and Clinton versus Bush the Elder in 1992. The political environment of those races favored the change candidates, but it was only when the challengers reduced the choice to the simplest of terms that they were able to close the deal with the electorate . Voters wanted change but were hesitant to cast their lot with the relatively riskier challenger until the contest was reduced to a single overarching theme. Reagan and Clinton took the White House by exploiting their opponents' most obvious and simplest weaknesses. 

Reagan made it look easy when he asked: are you better off now than you were four years ago? Day after day, speech after speech, ad after ad, Reagan pounded away at Carter with that simple question. Once voters accepted the notion of  a President Reagan, that simple, focused question almost guaranteed his election. In a similar way, Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign manager, James Carville, latched on to Bush the Elder's greatest weakness with a pit bull-like determination. He kept the Clinton campaign focused like a laser on a very simple theme:  It's the economy, stupid! 

Such is now the situation, I think, for Barack Obama. The Illinois Senator has established his presidential bona fides, both on foreign affairs and domestic issues. In order to win this election he must now Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS).  How to do that? In my view the answer is very straightforward: the Obama campaign must tie John McCain, hand and foot, to the failed presidency of George W. Bush.

On jobs, health care, gas prices, energy policy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, China, trade policy, education and every other issue, the message must be clear and relentless: John McCain = George W. Bush.  A vote for John McCain is a vote for four more years of the same. TV ads must have McCain morphing into Bush and then morphing back again.  Day after day, week after week, with no distractions allowed, Obama must run against Senator McSame.

If Obama allows McCain and the Republicans to make this election about anything else, he runs the very grave risk of losing. It cannot be about race, or about Obama himself, or even about John McCain.  The Obama campaign cannot, or course, allow outrageous attacks to go unchallenged, but it must - at all costs - avoid being drawn off its central, simple message of change from the disastrous policies of Bush/McCain.

So, Senator Obama, let's hear it, all day, every day, from now until November: a vote for John McCain is a vote for more of the same. It is a vote for four more years of Bush failure and incompetence.  America cannot afford that; it is the riskiest course of all.

A Sneak Peak at the Veep...

With Senator Obama's travels about to come to an end, I imagine the Veep guessing game will soon be underway full steam. In spite of the opinions of many of the talking media heads on cable TV, here are a few oft-mentioned VP choices for the Dems that I think are very long shots:

1. Sen. Evan Bayh (IN);
2. Sen. Jack Reed (RI);
3. Sen. Chris Dodd (CT).

All three of these sitting Democratic senators represent states with incumbent Republican governors. I don't think Sen. Harry Reid (NV), Senate Majority Leader, or Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY), head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, would be any too happy about surrendering a senate seat that is sure to be taken by a Republican if the Obama ticket wins. Count Bayh, Reed and Dodd out.

Also mentioned often but equally unlikely to get the VP nod:

1. Gov. Bill Richardson (NM);
2. Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE).

Richardson's very public break with the Clintons during the primary left a lot of bitter feelings that make him a high-risk choice for Obama. Hagel, as indicated by the red font used for his name, is a Republican. Although he has been good on the Iraq War, Hagel's otherwise very conservative record makes him unacceptable to important constituencies in the Democratic Party. No way on either of these guys.

So, where does that leave us? There are three choices for Obama's VP that seem very viable. Each of them could bring as much to the Democratic ticket as any vice-presidential candidate is likely to do:

1. Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY). Yep, she's still on my list. She carries a lot of baggage for sure, but she probably has a lot more good baggage than bad.
2. Fmr. Sen. Sam Nunn (GA). He has tons of foreign policy experience and that re-assuring Southern accent that many Independents and moderate Republicans find so appealing. Nunn has some repair work to do with the powerful pro-choice and gay rights elements in the Democratic Party, but he could probably placate those groups with a well-timed 'death-bed' conversion on issues vital to them.
3. Sen. Joe Biden (DE). He also brings lots of foreign policy expertise, a certain gravitas and a well-deserved reputation as a fiery (to put it mildly) campaigner. The later, in fact, may be his biggest liability.

It's early days yet but that's where I see it right now.