2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPlanned Parenthood Action Fund endorsed John Kerry in 2004 before the primaries were over.
Just FYI, on April 23.
2008 was actually the exception to the rule, as they did not endorse Obama until July 7. In 2012 they endorsed Obama on May 30.
So, the first time Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorsed a candidate it was before the primaries were over, and they did it a second time, before the primaries were over. The first time they did it it was still very early, and with other candidates with great grassroots support (Dean and Edwards were still fighting hard).
Not only is the "first time in 100 years that Planned Parenthood endorsed anyone" a lie, it is also a lie that they "should have waited until the primaries were over," since they only did that once.
Where ever this "100 year" meme is coming from is really suspect since they've been doing it since 2004, every Presidential year. Over a decade of Presidential endorsements. Ratfucking at its finest. Bravo to whoever came up with it.
BlueMTexpat
(15,372 posts)straight, joshcryer!
The anti-PP "mob mentality" and conspiracy theories were OTT, IMO.
Perogie
(687 posts)Kerry was the Democratic nomination for President in March according to the history books. PP endorsed Kerry after that, so they were endorsing a Presidential candidate.
By endorsing HRC before the primaries started, PP broke tradition of NOT endorsing Primary candidates.
Please pay attention to history
SunSeeker
(51,658 posts)Proserpina
(2,352 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I don't see what makes Planned Parenthood any different from any other organization.
dsc
(52,166 posts)and that they are linked with women. It is that simple.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)And there it is in a nutshell.
betsuni
(25,598 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Also, curious why there is only a decade long tradition, and how it has served them?
Doesn't appear to be serving them very well this time around.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)They set up the Plan Parenthood Action Fund in the late 90s to counter the anti-choice lobby. It seems more that they realized that if they wanted to keep existing with the extreme pressure of the anti-choice lobby then they would have to get political. Presidential endorsements, of course, are political in nature (and we shouldn't forget that Clinton had a shot to take that thing to the convention, and many observers thought she'd go for a brokered convention with a shared ticket; so I think that's why they waited so long on that one, new territory for the party).
And people doth protest too much, they've doubled down on their endorsement with several postings since the endorsement went out (see their pages on Facebook and their website, where they actually come down on Sanders for not introducing pro-women legislation, nor even mentioning them once in the debates). They aren't backing down nor do they seem to be bothered by the social media backlash.
They're actually handling it a lot better than John Lewis' people did (that poor John Lewis Facebook page was a disaster).
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)And so do people who have an adverse reaction to it.
Politics involves a lot of emotional thinking, some clear and some not so clear. But people have a right to their thinking and to their emotions and to their reactions.
I wonder exactly how it serves Planned Parenthood to make such an endorsement? What's in it for them?
I really don't see how it's of any benefit at all.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)They say as much, thanking her for mentioning them in all of the debates so far, and for tweeting about them on the regular, etc.
Uncle Joe
(58,403 posts)Thanks in advance if you know.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)helping defend an organization which has done so much for women's health care needs. The reaction to this endorsement has been as deplorable and plays right into rightwing narratives using rightwing tactics. Appallingly shortsighted and hurtful to the women served by PP.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Squinch
(50,993 posts)this is SO much worse than that! Because ... because .... because...
Kick.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Super Tuesday that year, for example, was on March 2nd. Kerry won 11 out of 12 contests that day losing only Vermont to Howard Dean. He then won 12 of the next 13 before April 23, losing only NC to John Edwards. The race was over when Planned Parenthood endorsed John Kerry in 2004.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2004
It really wasn't certain who would win the Democratic nomination in 2008 until July, so it made sense for PP to delay their endorsement that year until July. And in 2012 there was not exactly any suspense as to who the Democrats were going to nominate.
Last time I checked no votes have been cast yet in the 2016 race.
kath
(10,565 posts)Thanks!
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Perogie
(687 posts)Kerry had already sewn up the nomination even though there were still a few primaries. He was officially nominated before the primaries were over.
In Super Tuesday, March 2, Kerry won decisive victories in the California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Rhode Island primaries and the Minnesota caucuses. Dean, despite having withdrawn from the race two weeks earlier, won his home state of Vermont. Edwards finished only slightly behind Kerry in Georgia but, failing to win a single state, chose to withdraw, making Kerry the presumptive nominee. President Bush called Senator Kerry to congratulate him that evening.
On March 11, after meetings with Democratic superdelegates in Washington, D.C., and former primary election opponents, Kerry accumulated the 2,162 delegates required to clinch the nomination. The DNC's website acknowledged him as the party's nominee at that time, four and a half months prior to the Convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2004
So the Meme is kinda correct if you're talking about Primaries which most people are.
kath
(10,565 posts)Different situation.
An utterly boneheaded move for PP to endorse before a single freakin' vote has been cast. NOT appropriate when all 3of our candidates are pro-choice.