NY NOW Blasts Kennedy for Supporting Obama

[Brainster]

Here's a blast at the Tedster:

“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

“And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! 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 (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). ‘They’ are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.

Somehow they managed to hold back from mentioning Mary Jo Kopechne, but you get the feeling that she appeared in the first draft.

It appears that NOW is doing its best to draw the battle lines along gender lines, which clearly favors Hillary. Is their point valid? Is Teddy just another male chauvinist pig? And if so, what took NOW so long to realize it?

 

[corplinx]

You know, when I think of a true champion for women's equality I think of Hillary Clinton. Ted Kennedy's snub could set women back to wearing flapper skirts and dancing the Charleston.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

WTF?

Kennedy gave plenty of reasons for why he doesn't support the Clintons, and none of them have to do with gender.

If someone goes for Hillary can I accuse them of betraying blacks?

 

[dudalb]

Boy,the infighting in both parties is getting seriously nasty.

 

[dudalb]

Let's cut to the chase here:
Some Black Organizations will support Obama just because he is Black,and Some Women's orgnaizations will support Hillary just because she is a woman. Sad but true.

 

[Brainster]

Apparently the NY Chapter of NOW is generally non-inflammatory in their rhetoric:

Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President

 

[WildCat]

Is Teddy just another male chauvinist pig?

Well he and Chris Dodd are famous for that waitress sandwich episode at La Brasserie in 1985. I don't know why NOW is so late to realize that Kennedy is a pig.

 

[T.A.M.]

I read that article earlier this eve, and as I was reading, all I could think was...

"who is making this race about gender???"

TAM

 

[steverino]

You must admit, the Kennedy endorsement(s) of Obama seems a very personal attack on the Clintons on some level more than it seems a warm fuzzy gesture to Obama. I bet there is a story behind the story.

 

[Dr Adequate]

There are times when it pays to keep your big mouth shut.

Couldn't he have endorsed Hillary?

Shut up, Mr Kennedy. Shut up.

 

[Father Dagon]

Isn't it ironic that an organization that is supposed to fight gender oppression is playing the gender card? (We have people like these in Sweden too. Want any?)

 

[maxpower1227]

Isn't that pretty much all NOW does?

 

[Father Dagon]

Probably. I'm not really up to speed with NOW.

 

[Brainster]

You must admit, the Kennedy endorsement(s) of Obama seems a very personal attack on the Clintons on some level more than it seems a warm fuzzy gesture to Obama. I bet there is a story behind the story.

There is a frustration with the Clintons among many liberals, who feel they did not do enough to advance their agenda, and "triangulated" (that is, stayed in the middle of) the Democrats and Republicans especially after 1994.

Then again, it may be some personal issue.

 

[BenBurch]

The head of NOW Chicago just endorsed Obama, BTW, because Hillary disgusted her with her racial comments.

 

[Puppycow]

BETRAYAL ISN'T A STRONG ENOUGH WORD! TED KENNEDY IS, IN EFFECT, RAPING ALL AMERICAN WOMEN!!! WE'RE BEING RAPED!!! WE'RE MAD AS HELL AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!! AAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!

 

[marksman]

I lost respect for NOW when in the wake of the Monica Lewisnky "scandal" the head of NOW defended Clinton's relationship with an intern as a consensual relationship, despite earlier statements that such a relationship would be a misuse of power. Essentially, NOW abandoned their principles in favor of supporting a candidate.

Link (In 3/98, NOW President says if Clinton had a relationship it would be a misuse of power.)
link (In 8/98: NOW President says the relationship was "consensual" and not a misuse of power.)
Link (Northern Va. Chapter of NOW breaks from national NOW)

Note, this has nothing to do with impeachment. I opposed Clinton's impeachment. But I did expect NOW to use this as an opportunity to publicize the issue of workplace harassment, and they punted. Worse than punt, they betrayed their own principles. If anybody else had an affair with an intern in their office, they would have condemned it.

 

[Brainster]

I lost respect for NOW when in the wake of the Monica Lewisnky "scandal" the head of NOW defended Clinton's relationship with an intern as a consensual relationship, despite earlier statements that such a relationship would be a misuse of power. Essentially, NOW abandoned their principles in favor of supporting a candidate.

NOW was never more than an attempt by leftist women to grab some power for themselves as a subset of the Democrats. The brilliance lay in claiming to represent all women, which gave them almost instant credibility with the media. But inevitably supporting the women became secondary to supporting Democrats.

 

[fuelair]

What I want to know (enquiring mind....)is exactly how big a pile of feces do the Kennedys give over what a newspaper thinks of them?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Here's a blast at the Tedster:

It appears that NOW is doing its best to draw the battle lines along gender lines, which clearly favors Hillary. Is their point valid? Is Teddy just another male chauvinist pig? And if so, what took NOW so long to realize it?

This is no surprise coming from NOW.

The anti male element of feminism hasn't been well handled. The unspoken assumption is that in politics, gender is an inherent virtue, if it is of the distaff mode, with the justification being "well look at the mess we are in, with men in charge."

Kennedy telling the Clintons to piss off this soundly is news. Regardless of how he has become a caricature of a senator, he can still throw his weight around in Democratic circles.

Like Bobby was doing in 1968, before he got shot, Ted is making a play for the Black vote, and is also playing to the "anyone but Hillary" sentiment that seems to cross party lines.

This response clearly shows that NOW remains conceptually trapped in the 1960's and 1970's "Battle of the Sexes" trope.

Hmmmm. Trapped in a trope. I like the way that scans.

DR