Well, now, THIS is ridiculous!
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy is under heavy fire from a state chapter of the National Organization for Women for his decision to back Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.
In a sharply critical statement, the New York state chapter of NOW took aim at Kennedy Monday for what it called an "ultimate betrayal," and suggested the Massachusetts Democrat "can't or won't" handle the idea of Clinton becoming President of the United States...
"...And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment!" the statement continues. "He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton..."
"...This latest move by Kennedy is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation — to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a president that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’”
Meanwhile, the national chapter of NOW sought to distance itself from the state chapter’s comments, issuing a statement Monday evening that praised Kennedy's record with respect to women's rights.
"Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement," NOW President Kim Gandy said. "We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote."
IF they were suggesting that somehow Kennedy's endorsee - Obama - had a pitiful women's rights record, that might be one thing, but they're not suggesting that. They're suggesting that if we don't vote for and pull for a woman, that we are somehow betraying women and that we "can't handle" a woman president, well that's just devious. If that's the tone we ought to take, then if we support Clinton, minorities ought to rise up and denounce us for not backing Obama.
Thankfully, this is just one chapter - New York - and not the whole of NOW.
What is it with the Clintons and their defenders? They're acting positively... Republican. (Forgive me, my Republican friends.)
10 comments:
Interesting that they suggest that Kennedy support Hillary just because she's a woman. If someone suggested that Ted should support John Edwards just because he's a white man, NOW would loose their minds... er... loose their minds more. :)
The national NOW has distanced itself from the NY NOW chapter, but not enough. The Carpetbagger Report has a reply to this nonsense complete with horrified reactions by feminists. See
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14402.html
What does the NY NOW say about the endorsements of such prominent elected women as Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ) (who is on the Obama short list for VP, should he win the nomination), Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) who gave the Dem. Response to Bush's lame State of the Union last night, Toni Morrison, the only African-American woman to win the Nobel Prize for Literature and the author of the '98 article that first called Clinton the "first Black President", Nancy Keenan (president of NARAL Pro-Choice America), the former president of the Chicago NOW chapter, Tracy Fishman (former VP of Planned Parenthood), the head of the Rebecca Project against Violence to Women has endorsed Obama, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and most of the elected Latina women in CA, etc. The NY Now chapter is completely out of touch. Are they saying that ANYONE who votes for Obama is anti-feminist?? I remember women's groups being furious at the numerous betrayals of the Clinton years (Can anyone say Lani Gunier? Donna Shalila?). The NY NOW needs to get a grip.
Why would any woman think Kennedy respected her in light of the events of Chappaquiddick? But perhaps he is a member of that Über-rare species of "changed men," and if that be the case... again, why would he respect women?
If nothing else this illustrates the Democrat penchant for shooting the party in the foot.
Hi everybody, I'm a long time reader of this blog and its comments (about a year and a half now), I'm actually from Texas and I stumbled across this blog doing a random google search, been hooked ever since. If I may comment here, this just shows to me that most people are less concerned with the issues as they are with charisma, charm, and appearance. This onion article illustrates my point precisely. (warning, some mild language.) http://www.theonion.com/content//node/68210?utm_source=embedded_video_2
Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter are going to have a square dance over this one.
Thanks everyone - good to hear from you Ace.
May I play devil's advocate? We have been given a rare opportunity in this election to vote for more than a politician. We may vote for a symbol. Voting for politicians is always iffy. They are almost always a disappointment. But symbols, now that is a different thing.
Interestingly, there is a long history in this country of the women's movement being derailed in its progress by other important causes. Think Alice Paul and WWI. Read the great book, Freedom's Daughters and it's discussion of the necessity for black feminists to make a choice between their fight for equality as women or equality as African Americans.
NY NOW is making a point about voting for a symbol. They are saying that 2008 is the year for women. They are calling in favors. They are not saying that Obama's symbolism is not important, but they are saying that Hillary is the mature and ready candidate and that Kennedy has a symbollic debt to pay. And with Chappaquiddick in his past, they are right, he does.
If they want to endorse Clinton, by all means, they should. They should not suggest that we ought to vote for her merely because she's a woman, though. And they ought not suggest that those who have had problems with Clinton's record who don't vote for her (or endorse her) are somehow betraying women.
I think the National office of NOW had it right and the NY office was practicing poor politics.
Run some of the other seasoned women politicians and leaders, Carole Mosley-Braun, for instance. I'd LOVE to have a woman in office. Just not this one.
I agree that there are two ways to look at this discussion and though you may disagree with NY NOW's position, I don't think that it deserves your "Stupid, stupid, stupid" and "This is ridiculous" description.
Perhaps not. It's just that I get tired of this when it happens coming from the Right - the demonization of the Other simply because they're Other.
I mean I called this action "stupid," and they called Kennedy's action "a betrayal" - does that mean we're both merely demonizing the other?
I don't think so, I called this action "stupid" because I think it's sexist of them to suggest that Kennedy (and by extension, the rest of us?) should vote for Clinton merely because she's a woman. I reject that reasoning if someone were to say that in a McCain/Clinton showdown, we should vote for McCain merely because he's a man, and I reject it coming from the NY women saying it, as well.
It strikes me as sexist either way.
So I have a reason for calling this action stupid.
From what I read, the only reason they had for criticizing Kennedy (whom I don't particularly care for, by the way) was because he failed to vote for a woman. IF they had made the case that Obama was a flawed candidate, then I wouldn't have called it stupid, even if I disagreed. They would have been making a case on SOME legitimate grounds.
From what I see, it seems they're making a sexist, vote-for-X-because-they're-the-right-gender argument. That's what I'm objecting to.
Post a Comment