Kudos to PP for their endorsement of Hillary.

[DanTex]

It was a good move. It strengthens their visibility on the political stage, and reinforces their cause, women's healthcare, as an important part of the Democratic Platform.

And it also helps Hillary out more than waiting until the primaries are over to endorse her. An endorsement now says that Hillary is the one they want to lead the country forward and protect women's health. After the primaries are over, basically all progressive organizations and Democratic politicians will endorse the nominee, which is very likely to be Hillary. But an endorsement now is a stronger vote of confidence. Otherwise, the endorsement might be interpreted by some as "we'll take any Democrat" or even "we kinda wanted someone else, but we'll go with what we have."

And with all Hillary's done for women's causes over the years, she definitely merits the enthusiastic endorsement that PP gave her. The PP-bashing we're seeing here, and the suggestion that they should have waited the primaries out, are ludicrous.

[NCTraveler]

1. I believe PP has more clout...

Among house and senate democrats than does Sanders. I believe they are more effective at influencing legislation positive for women's reproductive rights than Sanders. Please note, that isn't saying one bad thing about Sanders with respect to women's rights.

[djean111]

2. So, it looks like you are saying that if Sanders is president, PP will not work with him on

influencing legislation? How very interesting!

[maddiemom]

10. No! That's NOT what he's (she's) saying.

Read more carefully.

[NCTraveler]

12. I have read my post numerous times...

And cannot find how you came to your conclusion.

[Armstead]

35. A strange comparison conparing a politician to an issue and service organization

Kinda apples and oranges

[ismnotwasm]

3. And they have an excellent rationale

I'd link but I'm pretty much done.

[Thinkingabout]

4. K & R

[NurseJackie]

5. All the hand-wringing from those who didn't get PP's nod makes the endorsement mean so much more!

At first I didn't realize what an important endorsement it was until the other side/s started-in with their attacks. After that, I fully understood the impact of PP's endorsement of Hillary.

For all the bitterness about how bad it is for PP to endorse anyone at all... and how there was a "kid pro quo" ... everyone knows that Bernie's followers would be shouting it from the rooftops if PP had endorsed Bernie instead!

[dpatbrown]

9. Warren

I think an endorsement from Warren will be much more effective, for either candidate, so lets see. You might still hear the shouting from the rooftops. Heck, if Sanders would have received PP's endorsement, it would have crushed Clinton's confidence, and her supporters. For Sanders, they can weather this storm. I do see Warren's endorsement this month, so hold your breath.

[NurseJackie]

19. She's too smart for that. She won't endorse anyone until we have a nominee from each party.

[dpatbrown]

32. You hope so!

At the same time, I believe she was the only woman Dem senator who choice not to endorse when the others did. What that implies is anyone's guess.

[Armstead]

36. I'd have mixed feelings if they endorsed Sanders

As a Sanders supporter, I'd be happy.

But the objective part of me would still believe that organizations like that should not be choosing in primaries among candidates who are all supportive of their agenda. Needlessly divisive among their supporters.

[Larkspur]

6. I'm not impressed

Both national PP and NARAL endorsed Holy Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont in 2006 even though the CT chapters supported Lamont.

The national PP and NARAL boards are neo-liberal, so not impressed that they voted to endorse a neo-liberal for President.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

7. facts do not count

good try

[SoLeftIAmRight]

8. fuel on the fire?

why?

[SusanCalvin]

13. Really. I had thought this discussion had died a natural death.

Well, I haven't tried trashing an individual thread before, so I guess I'll give it a go.

[raindaddy]

11. There's only one logical reason why PP would insert themselves into the Dem primary...

And has nothing to do with visibility on the political stage which makes no sense. They're already highly visible because the Republicans continually keep trying to de-fund them.

Why would a nonprofit dependent on donations from supporters what to risk alienating millions of liberals who are supporters?

The only logical reason is more of same corrupt political cronyism that exists in the DNC. They're scared to death that Sander's will be successful installing a single payer health care system, eliminating the greedy health insurance industry from taking their cut from basic heath care..

And if this were to happen Planned Parenthood would be marginalized along with the inflated $600,000 a year salary of PP president Cecile Richards which is $200,000 a year more than our President makes...

[DanTex]

18. Yes, obviously the conspiracy theory is the most logical explanation.

[raindaddy]

20. It makes more sense than they really, really like Hillary sooo much.....

that they're willing to alienate millions of supporters...

But I guess we can assume they're doing pretty well since PP President Cecile Richards is making $200,000 a year more than our President makes...
For a non-profit I think that's obscene.. That's a lot of money that could be going to protect women's health....

[DanTex]

31. Well, they obviously like Hillary a lot, which given everything Hillary has done

for women's causes, makes perfect sense. In their estimation, and I agree with them, the endorsement was worth potentially alienating a few angry white men.

As far as Cecile Richard's salary, I recall the GOP complaining about that during her congressional grilling. Which was just as odd as you bringing it up here, but I guess enemies of PP need to find something to complain about. $600k per year is not very high for someone running a major organization like that, if she left PP and went into the for-profit sector she'd make much more.

Your conspiracy theory makes just as little sense as the many other conspiracy theories that Sanders supporters have floated in the past few months.

[raindaddy]

33. They've alienated more than a few angry white men....

Pretty weak when your defense of Richard's salary is that Republicans complained about it. Of course they're going to complain about it because it's exorbitant. The median for nonprofit executives is around: $120,000.

PP is been around for 100 years and they've never endorsed in a primary.. But all of a sudden Hillary's slipping in Ohio and New Hampshire and they decide endorse her?

It's not like a PP endorsement is going to change the upcoming Hillary slide anyway...

[DanTex]

42. My defense of Richard's salary was not that the GOP complained about it.

I brought that up as an example (one of many) of the anti-Hillary wing of the party converging with the far right.

$600K for leading PP is not exorbitant. It doesn't matter what the median is, PP is very far from your median nonprofit. Richards does her job well, and she could easily make many times $600K if she went into the private sector.

As for the 100 years thing...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251990333

[Armstead]

38. There you go again...spouting nonsense

The only people who support Sanders are "a few angry white men."

Go to your room Dan. No supper for you.

[DanTex]

41. I didn't say that, as you know.

I was talking about the people who are lashing out at PP over this endorsement, withdrawing their (supposed) contributions, etc.

[Betty Karlson]

22. The reason is establishment and vested interests:

with Sanders' single-payer health care plan, the need for PP would spectacularly decrease overnight.

PP is for the status quo, and so they picked the candidate who doesn't want to really reform anything.

[raindaddy]

24. Yep.. It couldn't be more obvious...

[joshcryer]

25. What makes you think PP would go away under Single Payer?

Would all doctor offices magically disappear too?

Non-profits would thrive under single payer.

[Luminous Animal]

40. I agree.

[Betty Karlson]

44. Then they endorsed the wrong candidate! eom

[leftofcool]

37. A few Bernie supporters may not need PP but the rest of the country does

For every dollar you and the rest of the Bernie crowd with hold, the rest of us will quadruple. Simple math

[RoccoR5955]

14. Good, even though it's a Quid Pro Quo

After all, the President of Planned Parenthood's daughter is working for the Clinton campaign. It only makes sense that they endorse Hillary.

[tammywammy]

21. ...

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections-politics/blog/how-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-compare-womens-health/

[RoccoR5955]

27. Thanks from the biased piece.

Probably written with a bit of that Quid Pro Quo in mind.

[Yallow]

15. Why Does PP Screw Up Like This

So much for me supporting them.

PP and Goldman Sachs endorsed Hillary.

Seems kinda funny to me.....

[DanTex]

17. Umm, Goldman Sachs hasn't endorsed Hillary. But PP has, and soon Bernie will too.

What will the Bernie crowd say when that happens?

[Betty Karlson]

23. Sanders may endorse Clinton IF she wins the nomination.

But the likelihood of Clinton's nomination decreases with every passing hour, So I don't worry very much about my preferred candidate endorsing a woman I will never trust.

[joshcryer]

26. If it happens, under the bus he goes.

Bank on it.

[RoccoR5955]

28. And what will the Clinton Clan do

when Bernie wins the nomination?

[restorefreedom]

30. crickets. nt

[leftofcool]

39. Pearl clutching and couch fainting.

[oasis]

29. Count a great many Democratic congress folk as endorsers. I guess

they screwed up too.And unions galore. Did it ever occur to you that an overwhelming amount of institutions and individuals back Hillary because they believe she is best equipped to take on the responsibilities of POTUS?

[Gothmog]

16. I stand with Planned Parenthood

This was a great endorsement

[MellowDem]

34. Kudos for what?

PP is trying to do what is best for their organization by endorsing the big establishment candidate they expect to win. That's not kudos worthy in and of itself.

Where people take exception is Hillary's stances on many other issues is very conservative compared to Sanders, so PP is endorsing indirectly those positions in order to boost their own organization. Understandable, but pretty much the opposite of idealism, very much political practicality, and that turns off a lot of people who are idealistic and care about issues where Hillary causes a lot of harm to people.

[Cha]

43. Ah, yes.. I see what you're saying, DanTex! Great point.