Had John Edwards not endorsed Democratic Nominee Barack Obama yesterday, the big story would have been Obama getting endorsed by NARAL.

However, this endorsement did not sit well with some of NARAL's members, and quite frankly, that confuses me.

NARAL Pro-Choice America affiliates in key swing and primary states are openly distancing themselves from the decision by NARAL Pro-Choice America to endorse Illinois Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for president.

Senator Barack Obama is a strong pro-choice advocate. He has, by NARAL's own ratings, a 100% score on abortion rights issues. SO why are some of the branches upset by NARAL's endorsement of the Democratic Nominee with a 100% score on the groups issues?

Perhaps they felt that John McCain should have gotten the endorsement. John McCain, who sold his soul to the base of the party by promising to appoint judges who are likely to overturn Roe.

Or perhaps they're just upset because the women who has absolutely no chance of winning this nomination didnt get the endorsement.

"To endorse Obama at this point in the race is an unconscionable slap in the face to Senator Hillary Clinton."

A slap in the face? Really?

Is it really an "unconsionable slap in the face" to endorse the Democratic Nominee? Especially a nominee who has a 100% voting record (by NARAL"s own score) since he's been in Congress? Now, you can't do better than 100% so there is no way Hillary CLinton is better on these issues than Obama is simply because its hard to be better than perfect.  Maybe she's as good as him, but there's no way she's better.

SO why are they so upset?  They have a candidate who has a steriling record on these issues. So if being 100% on the issues you care about isn't enough to earn the endorsement, what, may i ask, is?

"We feel abandoned by this organization today," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Yes. I can understand how you would feel abandon by the organization endorsing someone with impeccable credentials on the issues this group advocates.

It makes no sense for these splinter NARAL groups to be upset that Obama got the endorsement. ANd if they are, they shouldnt be. He is one of the strongest pro-choice advocates in the Senate. So obviously, its not the issues that are angering the different NARAL branches. Its the fact that the women didn't get the nomination. Plain and simple.

NARAL is perfectly within its rights to endorse the candidate they feel is strongest on their issues, regaredless of gender, or race, or any other gobbledy-gook.

I applaud NARAL for recognizing that and taking appropriate steps to ensure a consolidation of support that will be vital to defeating John McCain in November.

Hillary Clinton, no doubt, is solid on abortion rights issues. However, she is not going to be the nominee. So why waste an endorsement on someone who is not going to win when you have a perfectly acceptable alternative who (I'll say it yet again) has a 100% score on the issues they care about?

These NARAL splinter groups are just whining. And really its a shame because they should rally around the Democratic Nominee to help ensure John McCain doesnt' get to appoint 3 or 4 new Supreme Court justices.

Seriously. The stakes are that high.