Liberals have a propensity for cannibalizing their own. This behavioral trait is entertaining for those on the right and just might cause the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this November. Organizations like NARAL Pro-Choice America and Hamas are weakening the eventual Democrat presidential nominee.
Hillary Clinton has been a high profile abortion rights activist since 1992. As a strident liberal who fiercely advocates unrestricted abortion, Mrs. Clinton is the quintessential NARAL candidate. She is the model of professional success that feminist groups hold up as the epitome of modern womanhood. She is a talented multi-tasker: a loving mother, an accomplished lawyer and political leader.
Yet, last week NARAL endorsed Barack Obama for president. Many diehard feminists in the organization were outraged. They asked why NARAL would weigh in for Mr. Obama when Mrs. Clinton desperately needed their support. She had earned it. But the answer was simple: Mr. Obama is to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
NARAL faces an increasingly hard sell and its betrayal of Mrs. Clinton has fractured its base. New ultrasound technology allows us to see babies moving inside the womb, sucking their thumbs, and opening their eyes. New medical breakthroughs have proven the unborn feel pain, and even get hiccups. With these developments, NARAL and its allies desperately need a pro-abortion president to defend their demand for unrestricted abortion.
The NARAL insult to Mrs. Clinton added to the injury already inflicted on the left’s chances this year by Hamas. Recently, Hamas embarrassed Mr. Obama by essentially endorsing him for president. The organization’s North American representative Ahmed Yousef told WABC radio that the terrorist group wanted Mr. Obama to beat John McCain in the fall election.
No candidate for president relishes being endorsed by terrorists who call for the downfall of America. It naturally raises questions as to why Hamas thinks Mr. Obama would be less troublesome to their radical agenda than his competitors.
These two endorsements hurt Senator Obama.
While he claims to be a moderate and a unifier, having NARAL’s endorsement over Mrs. Clinton will give independents and true moderates pause over how far left he must be. With Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain daily pointing out his inexperience, Hamas’ endorsement of Mr. Obama exploits that inexperience and reinforces why terrorists do not fear him.
The left thinks that by NARAL endorsing Mr. Obama now, it will help his chance this November. But the kisses from NARAL and Hamas may be kisses of political death. Endorsements such as these make swing voters in battleground states profoundly uncomfortable.
On Tuesday Mr. Obama lost the Kentucky primary to Mrs. Clinton by a 2-1 margin. Last week, he lost West Virginia by a similar margin. Before that, he lost the important swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Even more troublesome, exit polls from Kentucky said that Mrs. Clinton won convincingly among the state’s college-educated whites, a mainstay of Mr. Obama’s coalition.
So the left is its own worst enemy. It needs a Supreme Court to ensure that people cannot vote on abortion restrictions. It needs a president who promises to appoint activist jurists who will enshrine these priorities in national policy. The left needs Mr. Obama. But their embrace of him will make it unlikely that he will ever close the sale with Middle America.