I just read this article online today that NARAL Pro-Choice America (an abortion advocacy organization) has made the controversial decision to back Senator Obama instead of Senator Hillary Clinton in the campaign for presidency. Some people, including myself, feel that this move is rather insulting to Hillary because she has supported their cause on more than one occasion. I agree with the article that NARAL should have stuck behind Hillary for the duration of the campaign. What do you think?
Laura Lewis
POS1041 58484 MTW 5:30-7:30p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
After reading the article I agree with the NARAL decision to endorse Obama. I completely understand why they backed Obama, they said they backed the candidate who is more likely to win the nomination. Although many feel as if it's a slap in Hillary's face there's a big chance she's not going to win the nomination so why back her?
Chantelle Burney
POS1041 58484 MTW 5:30-7:30 p.m.
The link isn't working for me but from reading the comment above I figured the reason for backing Obama was because he was favored to win. They want their views to be taken to the White House and the only way that could possibly happen was to back Obama instead of Hilary. I'm sure thats why others are starting to back Obama now, so late into the game, like how Edwards now backs Obama.
Jessica Steffens
POS1041 58484 MTW 5:30-7:30 p.m.
I can understand why they did it, I just don't like it. It's smart to be on the winning team, but (from a naive perspective) I think that since she supported them, they should continue to support her. This is just one example of why I could never be involved in politics because I like things to be fair. It's like switching your favorite NFL team every year to the one that is most likely to win the superbowl that year.
Laura Lewis POS1041 MTW 5:30-7:30
Post a Comment