Abortion-rights groups that Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney might normally count on for support in a Democratic primary or a general election have already backed the woman she hopes to unseat in New York's 2010 Senate race, Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
In watching the incipient fight, which Maloney is expected to join in a matter of weeks, Notepad wondered why organizations like NARAL, which jumped into the fray late last month, and
EMILY's List, which made an instant endorsement before the field began to take shape, would back one candidate when both have consistently supported abortion rights.
A Senate-level primary fight between two Democratic women who support abortion rights is rare, though it is not unprecedented. The behavior of powerful women-driven political organizations in such a battle has important implications not just in the Gillibrand-Maloney race but in shaping future competition between and among women.
EMILY's List, which supports Democratic women who back abortion rights, has refrained from choosing between two such candidates in certain cases in the past. One example is the primary that Maria Cantwell, now Washington's junior senator, won over state Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn in 2000.
"I think it's great," Sheila O'Connell, then the political director of EMILY's List, said at the time. "We know a pro-choice woman will be nominated."
That's not the way the current New York Senate race is viewed.
For starters, Gillibrand, who was appointed to succeed New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in January, is treated as an incumbent to be protected.
When EMILY's List made its endorsement right after Gillibrand was named, the hope was to dissuade other Democrats from getting in and threatening her hold on the seat.
"Our concern was we didn't want to see any big primary fights that would encourage the Republicans that they could come in and try to take the seat," said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY's List. "Our view is we have our candidate in the race, that the incumbent Democratic senator is doing a good job."
Malcolm said she has spoken with Maloney within the last three weeks. While she says she did not ask Maloney to stay out, Malcolm did give the veteran congresswoman from New York's upper East Side an argument for why she might want to stay in the House.
"I've raised a couple of issues with her. One of them is, which I told her, I remember from New York in particular where we had fabulous women leaders like Bella Abzug, Elizabeth Holtzman and Geraldine Ferraro who ran for higher office, we lost them outside of the House and we were never able to get them back into Congress," Malcolm said. "I think it's her personal decision on how she views this playing out. I'm sure she will be making constant evaluations of where the race goes."
Kelli Conlin, president of NARAL's chapter in New York, said it was an easy choice when the state chapter endorsed Gillibrand in January. With Gillibrand as the incumbent -- even as an appointed one -- the question was whether any other potential candidate would be better on abortion-related issues.
"We look at the array of other candidates and we say 'Is there anyone who surpasses this person on the issue?'" Conlin said. "[Maloney's] not going to surpass Kirsten as a champion ... Kirsten came from a much more conservative district than Carolyn and still she was a champion on our issue. And that took a lot of courage."
The national-level NARAL endorsed Gillibrand late last month.
The endorsements will bring resources, according to Conlin.
"Once we make the decision to endorse someone, we're in for the full run," she said. "It's in our interest to see that candidate win. We will do whatever it takes to help Kirsten win election."
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
This kind of simplistic single-issue thinking is what caused me to stop contributing to NARAL. Of course, I have issues other than reproductive rights that I care about. But for a single-issue group like NARAL, why in the world should they care which of these two pro-choice candidates wins the Democratic primary. While supporting one, they turn off the other and take the chance that she might remember that in a negative way if she wins. As for the group that practices sex discrimination in making endorsements, I stopped giving to them as soon as I heard that.
I also think it's highly improper for the Democratic party establishment to involve itself in primary contests. Since they do, I won't give to the party either. For me, all that matters is the ideology of the candidates. That's what determines my contributions (which go only to individual candidates). Not their gender. Not their party. Obviously, neither of those determines how an elected official votes. If these interest groups and party officials care, don't they understand that?
Posted by: Ken Stevens
| July 7, 2009 10:53 AM
This kind of simplistic single-issue thinking is what caused me to stop contributing to NARAL. Of course, I have issues other than reproductive rights that I care about. But for a single-issue group like NARAL, why in the world should they care which of these two pro-choice candidates wins the Democratic primary. While supporting one, they turn off the other and take the chance that she might remember that in a negative way if she wins. As for the group that practices sex discrimination in making endorsements, I stopped giving to them as soon as I heard that.
I also think it's highly improper for the Democratic party establishment to involve itself in primary contests. Since they do, I won't give to the party either. For me, all that matters is the ideology of the candidates. That's what determines my contributions (which go only to individual candidates). Not their gender. Not their party. Obviously, neither of those determines how an elected official votes. If these interest groups and party officials care, don't they understand that?
Posted by: Ken Stevens
| July 7, 2009 11:49 AM
Let us all hope that Carolyn Maloney comes to her senses and stays in the House where she has seniority and important committees.
Posted by: NYer
| July 8, 2009 4:00 AM
Ellen Malcolm says it all. We do not need a costly and divisive battle between two women who share almost identical platforms. Either way, we will lose an advocate--to what end? Gillibrand is working hard, and proposing a wide spectrum of policy initiatives. Maloney has earned her seniority in the House and her position as Chair of the Joint Economic Committee. If they collaborate, their efforts can be greater than the sum of their parts. Divided, they create an opening for a GOP challenge. This is not about individuals, but what is best for the State, and for Choice. Put the ego aside, and work together.
Posted by: fran20
| July 8, 2009 12:53 PM
Post A Comment