Could NARAL Endorsement Hurt Obama?

When NARAL, the pro-choice women's advocacy group, endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.) over Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) it brought to the fore frustration and anger that had been simmering in the Democratic party. But while prominent Democratic women have voiced anger at the decision, the overriding question is: will it hurt Obama if, as is assumed, he becomes the party's nominee?

An immediate effect of this endorsement has been to stop Obama from declaring victory as the presumptive Democratic nominee because has to be very careful not to alienate women voters who perceive that sexism has played a role in the campaign.

Supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., NY) felt betrayed. Ellen Malcolm, the founder of Emily's List a group that supports women in politics, and a Clinton supporter said of the endorsement: "I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Senator Clinton...to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process."

The press has been hounding Clinton to quit. On Wednesday, prominent progressive writer Jonathan Chait wrote in the Los Angeles Times: "It's highly unusual for a mainstream presidential campaign to persist for so long with no purpose except self-perpetuation." Both Ronald Reagan and Sen. Ted Kennedy took mainstream campaigns to their respective conventions. This begs the question why Clinton can't carry her fight forward?

Geraldine Ferraro, a former VP candidate in 1984, has been a strong voice for Clinton in this campaign and for women during her career. She has increasingly lashed out at Obama. In an interview with the NY Times, she suggested she may not vote for Obama. She continued by saying: "I think Obama was terribly sexist," in reference to some of his comments on Clinton. She has been more vocal than most women in the media because of her high profile. And her voice will be heeded by some.