The Fierce Urgency Of NY NOW

This is hilarious.

"He's picked the new guy over us"--Ironic?

What a bunch of whining wimps. Get over it.

Maybe your candidate is just a stinker. Woman or not.

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | January 28, 2008 4:10 PM

What a joke! The Clinton camp keeps saying it is not about race and gender. Yet they continually have their surrogates work to pit sexes and races against each other. This is about the most pathetic thing I have read this cycle.

This reasoning seems to say that Hillary should be picked simply because she is a woman. Does that not fly in the face of gender equality? Isn't that exactly what NOW has been fighting against all these years?

Posted by cgibson | January 28, 2008 4:10 PM

Stuff like this comes from the top.

I'm really surprised that the Clintons have stooped this now.

Posted by Mark from NY | January 28, 2008 4:13 PM

Like or not ladies Teddy is not part of Obama's "Choom Gang."

Obama's lookin good and givin a shout out to his gang in his high school yearbook:

http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/Barry-Obama-lg.jpg

Posted by Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC | January 28, 2008 4:15 PM

Wait, this is an actual press release?

That is the most embarrassing, inherently anti-feminist screed imaginable from NOW. Notice the complete disinterest in voting for any reason other than gender. No effort is made because any effort would be disingenuous.

The Clintons' won a victory in New Hampshire (and rode it out in Nevada) with a transparently artificial display of emotion (read: femininity!) and now the Clintons will do anything they can, no matter how reprehensible, to make American women feel obligated to vote for the woman.

But what would be a more appropriate way for the woman who won every victory because of her massively more talented husband. And now even his well begins to dry.

Posted by V. | January 28, 2008 4:21 PM

If you would like to see an alternative perspective here is Lorna Brett Howard former President of Chicago NOW describing why she switched her support from Clinton to Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

Posted by Anne, SF, CA | January 28, 2008 4:23 PM

My wife supports Obama. Does that make her a sex-traitor?

Weird.

Posted by James from NJ | January 28, 2008 4:23 PM

This passage is in the original:

“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.’”

Women are obligated to vote for Hillary because women have been oppressed. By this logic, of course, African-Americans are obligated to vote for Obama, but NOW is comfortable with this no doubt since there are more women than African-Americans.

Posted by V. | January 28, 2008 4:27 PM

OMIGOD! Did the intern write that and release it without getting approval? What does NOW think of the large and growing number of endorsements of Obama by female senators and governors? Are they "traitors?"

Posted by Mary | January 28, 2008 4:32 PM

This is insane on so many different levels. What's next? Will the NY chapter of the KKK portray Kennedy as a "betrayer" for endorsing Obama over John Edwards.

Screw NOW. NOW stopped being relevant a long time ago.

Posted by Geoff | January 28, 2008 4:33 PM

At some point the country is going to have to say ENOUGH of gender politics like this. People are not moved by this sort of lambasting - they are revolted.

Nothing makes me want to get beyond the Clintons more than this sort of thinking and politics. It only makes Hillary look weaker to have to make this sort of attack by her surrogates to counter Kennedy's endorsement. It's like Cheney and Bush attacking the patriotism of anyone who didn't want to go war or questioned whether there were WMDs. It's fear mongering - you don't really support women, or civil rights if you aren't for Hillary. There is only one thing to do now - STAND FOR CHANGE - Obama '08.

But in the meantime - let's let all the venom come out and let people see what you get behind that placid Hillary facade. What you really get when you vote for Billary. Toxic political poison.

Posted by C.B. | January 28, 2008 4:41 PM

We heard alot of this kind of charge rhetoric after her New Hampshire emotional moment, but most people ignored it since it did seem somewhat justified by the reactions of the media.

This, on the other hand, is out of touch with reality. But I could certainly see Clinton using it to her advantage by distancing herself from it's tone while still letting the basic feminist premise stay out there.

Posted by Mike | January 28, 2008 4:45 PM

I think its an insane rant too.

But its not a press release; it was an email Pappas sent out. She's been sending out pro-Hillary emails all campaign long to a lot of addresses that didn't necessarily sign up for them (including my own) but thats not quite the same thing as an actual press release from either the state chapter or the national organization.

Posted by Gus | January 28, 2008 4:45 PM

(they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one)

Damn right I'll say it. Because it's true.

Posted by DaveWoo | January 28, 2008 4:45 PM

Sounds to me like the "fierce urgency of NOW."

Posted by lampwick | January 28, 2008 4:46 PM

Look, it's pretty obvious that this piece came from The Onion.

Right?

Posted by KathyF | January 28, 2008 4:49 PM

Damn! Talk about history repeating itself...

"If American women find it hard to bear the oppressions of their own Saxon fathers, the best orders of manhood, what may they not be called to endure when all the lower orders of foreigners now crowding our shores legislate for them and their daughters. Think of Patrick and Sambo and Hans and Yung Tung, who do not know the difference between a monarchy and a republic, who can not read the Declaration of Independence or Webster’s spelling-book, making laws for Lucretia Mott, Ernestine L. Rose, and Anna E. Dickinson. Women should not “stand aside and see ‘Sambo’ walk into the kingdom first” and that “it is better to be the slave of an educated white man, than of a degraded, ignorant black one.”

--Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1865.

Posted by Dawn | January 28, 2008 4:50 PM

Boy, that will show him. Nothing improves the chances of a woman president like out of control anger and the fury of a woman scorned.

Posted by drfranklives | January 28, 2008 4:51 PM

KathyF,

I actually hope the Onion publishes it!

Posted by Dawn | January 28, 2008 4:51 PM

Wow. Bitter much? It's almost like the Obama campaign wrote that just to discredit this group. Pathetic.
Also, since they don't support Obama, they hate black people. Sheesh.

Posted by Julie | January 28, 2008 4:51 PM

Good lord, don't tell them that Kate Michelman is on Edwards's board, for crying out loud.

Posted by drfranklives | January 28, 2008 4:55 PM

Ted Kennedy is an expert at abandoning women! But unlike the fate of poor Mary Jo who ended up at the bottom of the ocean, Hillary Clinton will easily win on Super Tuesday.

And won't it be sweet.

Posted by Xjt | January 28, 2008 4:58 PM

Women are more than 50% of the vote. See how hilarious it is when many of us stay home in November.

President McCain...hilarious!

Posted by Susan | January 28, 2008 5:00 PM

You people are idiots if you vote for Hillary!

Posted by Dodie | January 28, 2008 5:02 PM

Utterly bizarre. If it wasn't so shrill and strange top news organizations might actually cover it. But multiple exclamation points?

Posted by evie | January 28, 2008 5:04 PM

Oh, wait, is this one of them 'dog whistle' thingies I keep hearing about? Cause it sounds pretty shrill to me.

Posted by KathyF | January 28, 2008 5:14 PM

It's sad that they want to deny Kennedy the right to chose his candidate on such wretchedly sexist grounds. You might as well yell "Vote for the one with tits or be purged".

Posted by melkaz | January 28, 2008 5:24 PM

Gus: But its not a press release; it was an email Pappas sent out.

It is indeed, sadly and shamefully, an actual press release.

Sigh, so many people seem to be conspiring to deprive The Onion of their livelihood.

Posted by Nanette | January 28, 2008 5:38 PM

Can anyone vouch for the provenance of this press release? Not only is the rhetoric insane but you would suspect that the president of N.O.W. - New York would get the name of the Family and Medical Leave Act correct, wouldn't you? And my recollection is that Ted Kennedy supported the bill from the beginning and continues to support its expansion.

Maybe it's real, but at this point I doubt it.

Posted by Dungheap | January 28, 2008 6:00 PM

Speaking as a post-feminist I think that both NOW and the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) are being horribly anti-feminist! The reason I was a feminist is that I was hooked into believing that feminist meant equality, not pro woman. If this was true then there would be no problem with Ted Kennedy's statement supporting Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the recent feminist movement have been caught in a dizzy pro-woman spell that is knocking down the very cores of feminism. They have stated Kennedy has betrayed them because he supports Obama. I was actually told by leaders at the FMF that they were voting for Hillary primarily because she is a woman not because she is the best person for the job. This is ridiculous, if feminism stands for equality then shouldn't your vote go towards the best person (man or woman) for the job. These organizations are acting like the Bush administration any bad word against the female presidential candidate and you are anti-woman. Um didn't Bill Clinton compare Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson? As Don Imus says "If I would have said that I'd be talking to Al Sharpton." Maybe it's time we fired Bill

I choose to remain equal. I will vote based on the content of character and qualifications and not the the color of skin or anatomical part the candidate may or may not have! If these means I have to resign to being a feminist then so be it!

Posted by **** | January 28, 2008 6:02 PM

Here's a feminist take on this NOW press release being another example of Second Wave feminists exhibiting a long tradition of racisim within the movement and a politics of extreme divisiveness

http://avastconspiracy.blogspot.com/

Posted by tkr | January 28, 2008 6:05 PM

Nanette, damn. Hard to believe. But I stand corrected.

Posted by Gus | January 28, 2008 6:14 PM

I've found Hillary's claims of 35 years of experience to be laughable, but I can't deny she's got a vagina. So I guess if gender was my primary criterion for voting she'd be my choice.

If Obama went transexual, would NOW endorse him?

Posted by Helter | January 28, 2008 6:16 PM

While I guess Hillary herself had nothing to do with this, the implications of the politics "say and do anything to get elected" which so many politicians, mostly male and white, have practiced are reflected in this press release.

Many of my white female friends are pissed at the male establishment because they see that males impede Hillary to beat them in their game.

I say scrap the game.

Posted by yiannis | January 28, 2008 6:43 PM

I'm sure Hillary or national NOW didn't have anything to do with this. People get passionate about politics, obviously Marcia Pappas was upset. But she isn't speaking for Hillary Clinton or the national NOW organization. http://www.now.org/press/01-08/01-28.html

Posted by reader | January 28, 2008 7:04 PM

Lets flip this around to see just how crazy it is.

NOW has joined the list of progressive white women who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a black president who is Barack Obama (they will of course say they support a black president, just not “this” one).

Wow, that is craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy.

Posted by James from NJ | January 28, 2008 7:25 PM

Found an awesome article on this topic on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

http://savagepolitics.com

It’s called "Rubber Stamps R' Us".
Here is an excerpt: "Political endorsements have been a part of American Politics for more than a Century. They have been used to both consolidate a particular ideological position within a Party and/or to advocate the split from one imposing social current to another. They have also played a role in every subterranean aspect of our Nation’s history, because we have been socially conditioned to give weight to any and all forms of patronization. In the old days, a Party Boss would expect the endorsement of a high ranking official within his organization before he would openly lend his support to any particular candidate or figure. At other times, specially at the beginning of the 18th Century, it was the actual Party Boss who would make sure that certain officials got endorsed above others, all in the name of flagrant economic favoritism (also read SP article Slaves, Democrats, and “Honest Abe”). To the detriment of the public interest, many of these “rubber stamps” have served candidates to prove their undying loyalty to the Party’s (and eventually the National) Establishment interests. How negative is this archaic practice when juxtapositioned against the 21st Century?..." Get the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=61

Posted by Elsylee | January 28, 2008 7:33 PM

Sounds like it's somebody's time of the month....

I kid! I'm not really a pig, I just play one in the comments section.

Grossly inappropriate humor aside, this is a truly deranged rant. I grew up in a household where my mother was the primary breadwinner, and my wife makes more money than I do. After having almost exclusively female bosses over the past fifteen years of my life, I have no problem with the idea of women being in charge. But let's be frank here - Hillary would not be a candidate now if she hadn't married well (or poorly, depending on your perspective). So when she acts like her presidency would be such a great thing for womankind, I'm thinking...not so much. She's no Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel or Golda Meir. Those women got to their positions on their own steam, and that sets a far better example in my opinion.

But then I'm a guy, so I doubt Ms. Pappas cares what I think about such things.

Posted by Doug | January 28, 2008 7:44 PM

Boy, this is some dumb stuff from NY NOW. I'm a woman who supports Barack Obama because he's the best candidate in the race. He's got excellent policy positions and a great record on women's rights, so how am I betraying women by supporting him?
Here's a statement from the national chapter of NOW, trying to put out the fire:
http://www.now.org/press/01-08/01-28.html

Posted by Linda | January 28, 2008 7:54 PM

You can let her know what you think. The e-mail, snail mail, and phone contact information is here:

http://www.nownys.org/contact.html

I'm a woman, a feminist, and I think she's a raging loon, a cartoon of a feminist.

Posted by Suze | January 28, 2008 8:18 PM

It's the obama Lion's den: Let me wade in and say Teddy deserves what NOW is serving up.

What especially hits home is that Teddy served up No Child Left Behind: What a horrible piece of legislation:
What also stands out is the terrible double standard:
Obama "massages' the truth for months pointing at hillary as part of what is wrong with washinton, but is up there loving uncle teddy as if he isn't one of the old gang.

He points at Hillary as part of washington that is broken but embraces Kerry

He embraces all those who hate (see this blog) and calls it hope and change.

the people on this site can't stay away from the topic of bill having sex with that woman but teddy and dodd and Jack and bobby were all as bad as frank and the ratpack: according to several books I have read even MLK jr. didn't have sex with that woman. I revere many of these men and do not mean to malign them but then I am not the one who writes mean cynical potty mouthed stuff about bill clinton and I am not one of the thin skinned obama supporters who pretend the potty mouthed comments about the clintons is in keeping with Obama's campaign.

A slight double standard is apparent and its effect is bad for women, sexist, and transparent in a perverse way.

Let me quess now you are going to say the same crap about how Hillary is bad for feminism.
the people on this site astound me over and over.

The willingness of obama supporters to trash a woman running for president coupled with the inability of any of you to rise up and say your fellow suporters are wrong for sinking to such levels gives proof to what the woman from NY NOW is saying: and the fact that a bunch of obama supporters seem most concerned with how to unroll endorsements against Hillary and for the man candidate without having it look like they are ganging up on her is so riiculasly sad because you do infact want it to have the effect of piling up on her.
you are sincerely Obama's biggest liability.

Posted by Michael C. | January 28, 2008 8:43 PM

Aw, get your mind of the 1960s. Hillary isn't getting crap because she's a woman. Lots of people hate Bill just as much. It's not a gender thing. I have yet to hear anyone say women aren't capable of being president.

Do you honestly think the only reason Hillary is hated is because she has a vagina?

Posted by Helter | January 28, 2008 9:14 PM

As a 56 year old woman and long-time feminist, this is despicable. Hillary Clinton's actions, and statements like this, shame everything we fought the long hard fight for.

What kind of pathetic twisting of feminism is this supposed to represent? NOW should be publicly shamed by all women in this country. Hillary should just go home before she loses every bit of respect anyone had left for her. She lost mine long ago.

Posted by Terri | January 28, 2008 9:41 PM

PAPPAS SMEAR

Marcia Pappas has some questions she should answer to about returning "equal opportunity for women" Bill Clinton to the White House and vaunted co-presidency:

Please see the article in the liberal Nation magazine by feminist writer Katha Pollitt on Bill Clinton's alleged involvement in the Juanita Broaddrick sexual assault scandal (http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt).

Also, the original Washington Post story on the same subject (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm).

The Juanita Broaddrick interview in which she talks of her personal experiences with the Clintons can be seen at. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0)

You can also get a paperback version of the book "No One Left To Lie to"--about the Clinton White House--by British-American writer and human rights activist Christopher Hitchens. See his chapter on "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?"

Recently Hitchens reminded (http://www.slate.com/id/2182065) that the essay "has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton 'rapid response' team.

"Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's 'issues.'"

Posted by MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN | January 28, 2008 9:49 PM

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt

Re: Juanita Broaddrick
by KATHA POLLITT

[from the March 22, 1999 issue]

We will never know the truth behind Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Bill Clinton raped her in a Little Rock hotel room in l978. The most you can say about it, which is also the least you can say about it, is that her story is credible ... investigations by NBC News and reporting from the Washington Post poked no major holes in it. She has as much corroboration as Anita Hill--friends who say she told them about the assault at the time, one of whom says she saw her immediately after with a bruised and swollen lip. So far as we know, Broaddrick has no motive to lie. Of course, the President's men are right to say you can't disprove an ancient charge like this. But the best Clinton's defenders can come up with is that rape doesn't fit his "MO"--as if, after all the backing and filling and prevaricating and outright lying, we know what this man's MO really is.

Now that the impeachment trial is over, it's time for progressives to get back to their drawing boards and let Bill Clinton clean up his own mess. If, as NOW president Patricia Ireland said, "There's no way that Bill Clinton can look into the cameras and deny it and have anybody believe it," that is a problem entirely of the President's own making, and it would be a grave mistake for feminists, environmentalists, trade unionists and civil rights and civil liberties advocates to lend him a penny more of their moral capital. ... We've seen Jesse Jackson hailing "our President" as the bombs were falling on Iraq and Barney Frank defending--wittily, tirelessly--the man who signed the Defense of Marriage Act. As the anti-impeachment slogan put it, enough is enough.

Feminists in particular have nothing to gain, and much to lose, by rallying to the President in this matter. It's one thing to distinguish carefully between sexual harassment and sexual hi-jinks in the Oval Office; rape is something else again. ...

Posted by Martin Edwin Andersen | January 28, 2008 10:37 PM

Hillary should just go home?
that's not gender based?
should she make cookies too?

Hillary Clinton isn't a pathetic twisting of feminism:
Lets remember that Sibelius is where she is because of her father so if Hillary is a twisting of some do it all by yourself requirement we've newly established for feminism, then sibelius is the same disgrace hillary is. Ted Kennedy is the son of a dynasty, the brother of a dynasty whose money helped make them the first family of American politics, the son and brother who took over his brother's seat, his brother installed his brother as AG, his brother ran as senator and president as part of a dynasty, and Teddy is the uncle of a third generation of the dynasty spread over three states or more. Yes we all love the Kennedys but why is the Sibelius dynasty and the Kennedy Dynasty fine with you all but the Clinton Dynasty of a fatherless son born to a welfare momma and a girl who grew up middle class in suburban illinois NOT fine? The Gore dynasty is fine because you are waiting on his endorsement but Hillary is some nasty emblem of a dynastic hold that is what is wrong with America?
You haters are inventing reasons not to vote for a woman: anything but that. And you pretend it has nothing to do with gender.

You say its not gender but can you think of any woman whose campaign for president you have suppported? Is there a single person in American politics you speak more angrily of?
you are more judicious with your words when it comes to both bushes and the reagans and nixon and mc Carthy:
Above someone already has mentioned Hillary's vagina; you get to reduce it to that?
what a shameless bunch of women-fearing bigots you are.

Posted by Michael C. | January 28, 2008 11:01 PM

Troll alert.

Posted by Doug | January 28, 2008 11:14 PM

Like in 2004 with John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy has shown once again his special ability to chose and endorse the weakest and most vulnerable Democratic candidate...
Kudos to the NY NOW for telling Kennedy what he deserves to hear, and for warning us of the possibility of four more years of Republican rule if Obama gets the nomination...

Posted by Bostonian | January 28, 2008 11:19 PM

MichaelC

You might want to remember that SEbelius is not SIbelius - the latter being remembered as the male Classical composer from Finland, the former as a female governor from Kansas. Generally speaking, it's a good idea to know who you are discussing, no?

Other than that, I think you do a brilliant job of reminding me that Hillary has no real defenders here, and for fairly obvious reasons. You don't offer anything like a reasoned defence, but simply throw around accusations of sexism like they were going out of fashion. So if we are speaking of double standards, I'd suggest that you remove that large chunk of wood from your own eye. It just ain't aesthetic.

Posted by borjanmalerei | January 28, 2008 11:27 PM

MichaelC does a great job of reminding us what a privileged and dishonest pair of scum the Clintons are. His searing critique is a perfect match for the NOW endorsement of their campaign.

Posted by sashaqz | January 28, 2008 11:30 PM

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ObamaBrigade/

Great group, been supporting Barack since his run for senate in 2004.
Join us.

Posted by Curtis | January 28, 2008 11:57 PM

Note that national NOW is not in agreement:
http://www.now.org/press/01-08/01-28.html

NOW's Response to Sen. Kennedy's Endorsement

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

January 28, 2008

The National Organization for Women has enormous respect and admiration for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D- Mass.). For decades Sen. Kennedy has been a friend of NOW, and a leader and fighter for women's civil and reproductive rights, and his record shows that.

Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement. We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote.

Posted by reader | January 29, 2008 12:25 AM

Thank you Senator Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy for your endorsement! I am a strong feminist and advocate for women's rights and celebrate the dedication that Senator Barack Obama has contributed in the Illinois and U.S. Senate towards women's rights.

I must express deep concern that the divisive tactics of Hillary Clinton in misrepresenting Obama's strong pro-choice record will go unaddressed and accepted by NOW!

Electing a woman who is willing to trick the very women she claims to represent is reprehensible.

Posted by Toto | January 29, 2008 2:12 AM

Obama supporters here on this site are astonishing:
Ted Kennedy was for his old drinking and whoring buddy dodd before he was for Barack. Caroline Kennedy is truely a child of privilege along with all her cousins and uncles BUT sashaqz says it is the clintons who are the privileged ones: Where is the logic or truth there?

People on this site say that feminism is out of fashion: what a bizarre statement that is.
People on this site use the gyn taunt, "the pappas smear' and then claim it isn't about gender: where is the truth or logic there?

Wait until Gore endorses Barack: what a picture that will be: three presidential losers standing by his side: Kerry (couldn't get it done), Kennedy (couldn't get it done) and Gore (ultimate couldn't get it done): the old boys club by the side of the man who points at the female candidate and say out with the old and in with the new: where is the truth or logic there.

It's okay here to call Hillary a bitch but haters here say that's not a double standard: can we call Obama a bitch? or is that the emascalation of a proud black man? Look a little deeper at your hatred obama supporters: you defend the language you use to support your guy and denounce Hillary but you rush out and condemn language Hillary and her supporters use as dog whistle, as divisive, as racist:
obama supporters remain Obama's biggest liability.

Posted by Michael C. | January 29, 2008 7:58 AM

Does this event represent the moment that gender became a part of the Democratic primary elections?

If so, we should note that neither campaign was directly responsible for its inclusion, and that it was included to "defend" a candidate that will probably end up hurt by it. This doesn't seem dissimilar to how race became a part of the elections, save to persons who believe that the phrase "shuck and jive" is intrinsically racist.

Perhaps it was inevitable. To be honest, while I had hoped that Obama would be able to run a "race does not matter" campaign, I do know that some people are going to vote or not vote for him because of race. I'd like them to be able to say so openly and defend their positions. I feel the same way about people who intend to vote for Clinton primarily for her gender. If enough people hold these positions, failing to discuss them would only lead to people inventing justifications for their support or opposition, making debate a waste of time.

Posted by Steven the all-knowing | January 29, 2008 11:37 AM

I'm undecided about who & which party I’m voting for, but found this great article called "Black Voters and a Twist of Bias" on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=59
WOW- all I have to say!
Here is an excerpt: “Last Saturday’s South Carolina Democratic Primary produced the widely expected result of a Barack Obama victory. From the beginning of the week, it was the ethnic composition of the State in question which was amply discussed by both the Media and it’s multiple pundits. It was here and through other sources that we discovered that 55% percent of Democratic voters in South Carolina were African American. An interesting number when you consider the “coincidence” that Obama actually won the election by exactly the same margin: 55%. Of course, many in Clinton’s campaign have used this demographic reality to spin their defeat, vociferating that they had always expected to loose from the start. It should be noted that it has been this exact attitude which they have ridiculed Obama’s camp for, insinuating that they had proved to be “sore losers” by not admitting their own failures in stating their case to the American People. As we all know, in modern politics, no campaign is free of idiotic childishness, sadly resurfacing the reality that our current political existence is dominated by whining imbeciles of the lowest ilk. Nevertheless, the Clinton Campaign’s affirmation (victory based on a unified ethnic constituency) is valid, especially when we consider the data.
The Primary’s exit polling, presented by all major networks, were utilized by analysts to determine how was Obama’s, Edwards’, and Clinton’s support spread throughout different social markers. Their results indicated that 80% of the Black vote, and only 20% of the White vote, went towards Barack Obama. Regarding most White voters in the State, you could easily identify their split between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. The significance of this racial division is crucial in understanding the fate of Barack Obama’s campaign, and the Democratic Party, if they chose to face the General Election with him at the helm.…” Find the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=59

Posted by Elsylee | January 29, 2008 1:44 PM

Whoa. This is just a MAINSTREAM FEMINISM speaking- anyone who do not back a woman candidate is an ENEMY of women. And Hillary's ideological roots and NY NOW women's ideological roots are the same. In other words, Hillary IS NY NOW chapter women and NY NOW chapter women ARE Hillary. They are from the same school of thoughts.

If, god forbid, if we were to have Hillary as the next President, you will see many people like them gaining power in Washington; the shrill, hysteric, man-hating militant feminists. They will be calling the shots and influencing important decisisons in the capital. People who are ideologically not so different from NY NOW President will be filling cabinet posts in the second Clinton administration. Their pals in women's studies course are filling upper echerons of federal bureaucracy and enforce their feminist utopia.

Posted by sorenlerby | January 29, 2008 1:49 PM

Just imagine having some of the loony heads from NY NOW chapter in key government positions - yet that is exactly what is going to happen when the Clinton wins election! She will bring in tons of people who are associated with NOW and other similar loony militant feminists oprganizations, scholars from women's study course in her administartuion to fill cabinet and other key posts and in many senior posts in the government.

Anyone with a least bit of intelligence could see to it that Hillary is not running for US President to solve Middleast crisis, boost economy, blha , blah, ... All those pesky "policy issues" are adds-on to her most central agenda - gender-free society, a feminist utopia. She is running to satisfy her onw ego to be the most powerful women in the world and bring about feminist utopia.

Posted by sorenlerby | January 29, 2008 2:01 PM

The Clintons are going for another NH “crying” moment to get women whipped into a frenzy, so they’ll vote for Hillary on February 5th; only, you can only pull the “crying game” once, so here comes the NY Now attack to the rescue! Wounded female! Call in the reinforcements!

Today in MA, one of the female legislators has gone on record complaining to so many of the men are supporting Barack Obama.

As a fellow female, I am disgusted by this behavior. There are so many talented, accomplished, self-made women in America, and I think Hillary and her little minions are cheapening this election with this crap.

She would not be US Senator or a contender in this race if she weren’t married to Bill, and now she’s playing the gender card to win. As Maureen Dowd of the NYT said recently, “It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line.”

Posted by sue | January 29, 2008 5:30 PM

The Clintons are going for another NH “crying” moment to get women whipped into a frenzy, so they’ll vote for Hillary on February 5th; only, you can only pull the “crying game” once, so here comes the NY Now attack to the rescue! Wounded female! Call in the reinforcements!

Today in MA, one of the female legislators has gone on record complaining to so many of the men are supporting Barack Obama.

As a fellow female, I am disgusted by this behavior. There are so many talented, accomplished, self-made women in America, and I think Hillary and her little minions are cheapening this election with this crap.

She would not be US Senator or a contender in this race if she weren’t married to Bill, and now she’s playing the gender card to win. As Maureen Dowd of the NYT said recently, “It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line.”

Posted by sue | January 29, 2008 5:30 PM

The Clintons are going for another NH “crying” moment to get women whipped into a frenzy, so they’ll vote for Hillary on February 5th; only, you can only pull the “crying game” once, so here comes the NY Now attack to the rescue! Wounded female! Call in the reinforcements!

Today in MA, one of the female legislators has gone on record complaining to so many of the men are supporting Barack Obama.

As a fellow female, I am disgusted by this behavior. There are so many talented, accomplished, self-made women in America, and I think Hillary and her little minions are cheapening this election with this crap.

She would not be US Senator or a contender in this race if she weren’t married to Bill, and now she’s playing the gender card to win. As Maureen Dowd of the NYT said recently, “It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line.”

Posted by sue | January 29, 2008 5:30 PM

Ted Kennedy has always been a loser. Like his late 2 brothers, John and Robert are known for abandoning women. The family was cursed because of what their father did to their sister Rosemary. At Joe's plan, Rosemary was subjected to lobotomy and was kept since then in an institution until her death. Ted kennedy's mental state is screwed-up. No wonder he endored the Muslim candidate.
the late King HUSSEIN of Jordan(Muslim name)
the late Sadam HUSSEIN of Iraq(Muslim name)
Barack HUSSEIN Obama....is this not a Muslim name? HUSSEIN is not a Christian name and will never be. Wake up people of America! This is a simple math.

Posted by Heathcliffe | January 29, 2008 5:35 PM

What NYNOW has done is to have, in effect, accused Ted Kennedy of racial treason for supporting a black man over a white female. Sure it's couched in the language of feminist politics, but that "WHITE progressive men" line tells it all. The National orgnization should disavow and rebuke Pappas for this outlandish and disgusting letter.

Posted by Sean A. Smith | January 29, 2008 9:28 PM

I saw Pappas today on MSNBC and she was interviewed by Norah O'Donnell. She was just as angry and irrational as her letter. I expected her to start foaming at the mouth. This democratic race is giving me a headache. No one is free to endorse or vote for anyone other than Hillary, lest they be branded an enemy of women. How does this help bring about equality for women? Pappas said we need a woman in the WH because she'll wake up every morning thinking about women's issues and how to get women the rights they deserve. I can't take anymore. If Hilary gets the nomination, I will be voting Republican. The combination of Bill and Hillary for 4 to 8 years is too much for me. The insanity must stop.

Posted by Kimberly Davis | January 29, 2008 10:44 PM

I saw Pappas today on MSNBC and she was interviewed by Norah O'Donnell. She was just as angry and irrational as her letter. I expected her to start foaming at the mouth. This democratic race is giving me a headache. No one is free to endorse or vote for anyone other than Hillary, lest they be branded an enemy of women. How does this help bring about equality for women? Pappas said we need a woman in the WH because she'll wake up every morning thinking about women's issues and how to get women the rights they deserve. I can't take anymore. If Hilary gets the nomination, I will be voting Republican. The combination of Bill and Hillary for 4 to 8 years is too much for me. The insanity must stop.

Posted by Kimberly Davis | January 29, 2008 10:44 PM

Ugh, there are certainly people like Pappas out there, but she is not representative of all of NOW. I just can't imagine that no one has told her that her press releases have to be vetted by the organization. What kind of top down org is it when the president can say whatever she wants no matter how damaging to the organization? Very odd, but very dictatorial. That being said, her digs at Howard Dean, Alternet (where did that come from???) and "Kucinich lovers" are random and bizarre.

Posted by ceti | January 30, 2008 12:10 AM

Heathcliffe sounds like a real dumb ass

Posted by balzar | January 30, 2008 1:35 PM

Heathcliffe sounds like a real dumbass

Posted by balzar | January 30, 2008 1:36 PM

Why would the NOW want to support a Women candidate who is only a viable candidate because her HUSBAND was President. I would like to see a Women President, but someone who is not riding on the coattails of her husband. Hillary would not be our first Women President....she would be a co-president.

Posted by Diane | January 30, 2008 6:55 PM

Well at least one NOW member seems to disagree with this:

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/01/the_consequences_of_negative_c.html

It seems like NY NOW needs to spend more time analyzing the candidates positions, not genitals.

Posted by Takey | February 5, 2008 4:18 AM

The Fierce Urgency Of NY NOW

Comments (70)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives