View Story | 349 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Statement by Marcia Pappas, President of NOW - New York State The National Organization for Women - NYS and its many statewide chapters have received numerous calls and emails from women and men promising that in the November election they will not cast their votes for anyone but Senator Hillary Clinton. This surge of communications comes at a time when the roll of superdelegates is being debated in the press and media. In voting at the Democratic Convention, superdelegates should recall that the post-9/11 fight for New York State funds was an unprecedented task. In those extraordinary circumstances Hillary Clinton truly went to bat for New Yorkers. That date marked the most devastating attack on US soil in our history. But Clinton’s experience, knowledge, and resourcefulness shone through in her crucial decisions for those awful times. And as far as military preparedness is concerned, Clinton’s huge bank of supporters happens to include an impressive number of notable generals who believe she is the very best candidate to deal with any war-time crisis. In light of these undisputed facts, the Democratic superdelegates should certainly be very mindful of the aforementioned calls and emails coming in to NOW-NYS, all from voters declaring that if Obama wins the Democratic nod, they will either vote for McCain or write in Hillary's name. These usually loyal democrats have made it clear that they will not vote for Obama. They are infuriated that a woman with exemplary qualifications could be supplanted by a man with limited experience and scant qualifications. Sexism in the media and statements by political pundits, some even from Democratic leaders, has contributed greatly to the attempts to diminish Clinton. The same phenomenon is building up her opponent who is largely unknown and untried. Furthermore, this meteoric elevation of an unexamined candidate has sparked resentment and anger from a huge portion of the New York constituency. It has been further suggested by callers that if Obama's supporters are so anxious for Party unity, they should convince him to drop out because Hillary Clinton has won all the big states a candidate needs to take the Presidency. Women make up two thirds of the Democratic Party. Throughout history they have supported mediocre male candidates. It is very much high time for the Party and its superdelegates to support a superior woman.
Statement by Marcia Pappas, President of NOW - New York State
The National Organization for Women - NYS and its many statewide chapters have received numerous calls and emails from women and men promising that in the November election they will not cast their votes for anyone but Senator Hillary Clinton. This surge of communications comes at a time when the roll of superdelegates is being debated in the press and media.
In voting at the Democratic Convention, superdelegates should recall that the post-9/11 fight for New York State funds was an unprecedented task. In those extraordinary circumstances Hillary Clinton truly went to bat for New Yorkers. That date marked the most devastating attack on US soil in our history. But Clinton’s experience, knowledge, and resourcefulness shone through in her crucial decisions for those awful times. And as far as military preparedness is concerned, Clinton’s huge bank of supporters happens to include an impressive number of notable generals who believe she is the very best candidate to deal with any war-time crisis.
In light of these undisputed facts, the Democratic superdelegates should certainly be very mindful of the aforementioned calls and emails coming in to NOW-NYS, all from voters declaring that if Obama wins the Democratic nod, they will either vote for McCain or write in Hillary's name. These usually loyal democrats have made it clear that they will not vote for Obama. They are infuriated that a woman with exemplary qualifications could be supplanted by a man with limited experience and scant qualifications.
Sexism in the media and statements by political pundits, some even from Democratic leaders, has contributed greatly to the attempts to diminish Clinton. The same phenomenon is building up her opponent who is largely unknown and untried. Furthermore, this meteoric elevation of an unexamined candidate has sparked resentment and anger from a huge portion of the New York constituency. It has been further suggested by callers that if Obama's supporters are so anxious for Party unity, they should convince him to drop out because Hillary Clinton has won all the big states a candidate needs to take the Presidency.
Women make up two thirds of the Democratic Party. Throughout history they have supported mediocre male candidates. It is very much high time for the Party and its superdelegates to support a superior woman.
Join the College Kossacks on Facebook. Hat Thief
by DemocraticLuntz on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:46:45 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Talk about jumping the shark!
by notksanymore on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:48:24 PM PDT
When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.
by onanyes on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:55:32 PM PDT
here
"A ship in port is safe, but that is not what ships are for. Sail out to sea and do new things." - Admiral Grace Hopper, Computer Pioneer
by chrisblask on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:27:18 PM PDT
Rejoined and posted to the blog. This is infuriating. What is wrong with these women. I hate single issue shit!
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell
by Psyche on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:34:39 PM PDT
I have relatives that vote only on this issue and they are Rethugs that vote for Bush and MCSame because they hope for Roe v Wade reversal. They vote against their own economic issues because they hate abortion so much.
Talk about your vicious bitches. I don't understand this Hillary (Mrs. Karl Rove) hanging on in spite of the lies and the attacks. It is obvious tome that Hillary is just making her case worse by staying in the race and being a putz!
Not only did we beat the British now we have to beat the Bushes.
by libbie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:05:21 PM PDT
Watching the Edwards endorsement - wall to wall coverage. That sure does take the wind out of her WV sails! People are coalescing around Obama to escort her off the stage. Too bad it had to happen this way.
by Psyche on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:11:46 PM PDT
Was Pappas Giuliani's speechwriter?
Running against Herb "WIRETAP" Kohl in 2012. $1/year. Cash preferred. Masel4Senate 1214 E. Mifflin, Madison, WI 53703
by ben masel on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:30:24 PM PDT
Since Obama already has the 100% rating and it is difficult to do better than that. (Unless being a woman gets you extra credit)
I know Hillary sent out false attacks on his stands and evidently they believe some?
Though I'd disagree I might understand this anger if this endorsement came after Super Tuesday when Hillary still had a great chance. Maybe even if it came after Ohio/Texas. Maybe even PA. But now?
I suspect NARAL felt it would do more to draw the party together to do it now, to say before it's like they have no choice because he's the nominee- this man is good for our issues.
He is but he is not a woman, despite what Maureen Dowd keeps implying.
This is strange. These accusations of misogyny seem to reflect misandry, a contempt for men that is absolutely contradictory to feminism.
by joynow on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:32:38 PM PDT
I've had trouble in the past with NARAL focusing only on the single issue of abortion when assessing candidates and not looking more broadly at how progressive their record was. In this case I get the sense that they were thinking more broadly and acting appropriately to end the destructive campaign. Kudos to them.
Hillary was the single issue this time for those who screamed so loudly about NARAL's decision. I've seen little evidence that they give a damn about anything else.
by Psyche on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:52:30 PM PDT
did you vow to stop giving money to them when they endorsed Linc Chafee or Joe Lieberman too?
As I recall there was great gnashing of teeth over their bad endorsement during both of those times.
by Show Me Dem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:28:58 PM PDT
...I posted a link down below to Firedoglake regarding the Alito confirmation and NARAL's approach to defending choice.
by elial on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:43:08 PM PDT
Wow - the Hillary crowd are trying to crash the site.
Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by Deoliver47 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:11:24 PM PDT
That graphic was stolen from okcupid.com .
And I don't think it's helpful, either.
tunesmith's latest song: My Favorite Clown
by tunesmith on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:26:27 PM PDT
and delusional. They sound like wingnuts these days.
by Philoguy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:58:33 PM PDT
this diary.
by blueocean on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:00:03 PM PDT
There is an "official" jar downthread, but the comment you responded to will be easier do (and it's higher in the thread).
Now, go spread some peace, love and understanding. Use force if necessary. - Phil N DeBlanc
by lineatus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:27:01 PM PDT
There was an excellent article about this in The Nation a few weeks ago.
Essentially, the old-guard types want to see a woman president before they die, and they don't care what they have to do -- or who or what they destroy -- to achieve that goal. The younger feminists, nonwhite feminists, and antiwar feminists are much more interested in the big picture.
John McCain will end Roe v. Wade if he's president.
by Phoenix Woman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:53:38 PM PDT
into discussions about the "Hillary demographic," wearing my Obama button.
The NY NOW response is just disgraceful. And I've been fighting for feminism and women's rights for 40 years.
...just another hooligan from the Dalai clique
by RadioGirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:10:04 PM PDT
Just thank you. Without your courage, I would not be who I am today.
...on a good day I bowl a 19
by mahakali overdrive on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:33:02 PM PDT
without you, mahakali overdrive.
Isn't it lovely how it works both ways?
by RadioGirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:53:18 PM PDT
of the campaign of Dixie Lee Raye for governor of Washington back in 1976. The acronym became WuPPSS for which folks are still paying for.
by paul94611 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM PDT
Huh? What happened when Dixie Lee Ray ran for governor in Washington in 1976? What does WuPSS stand for? Please explain yourself.
"Lies return." - African proverb
by Night Train on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:06:23 PM PDT
I didn't find anything for WuPSS that would be remotely relevant, but Dixie Lee Ray seems to be an early DINO/Liebercrat.
Nominally a Democrat, she won the governorship in Washington in 1976, but quickly astonished her supporters with her strongly conservative views. She lost in the 1980 Democratic primary election to then-State Senator Jim McDermott, who went on to lose in the general election to moderate Republican John D. Spellman.
Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.
by Hannibal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:39:16 PM PDT
that she became a strong supporter of nuclear power.
by Night Train on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:00:46 PM PDT
= The Washington public Power Supply System. It became known as (Whups). In 1976 Ms. Raye, was vaulted to the governors office by what has been referred to earlier in this theread as "the old line feminist movement". Ms. Raye pumped billions into nuclear power in Washington state that never came to pass. This candidate is an example of supporting a candidate because of gender when their policies do not support the party.
by paul94611 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:24:31 PM PDT
refer to the below comment
by paul94611 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:25:00 PM PDT
by paul94611 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:25:26 PM PDT
Race vs Gender have been issues both at the founding of the nation and during the struggle for women's suffrage.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
by empathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:30:15 PM PDT
On account of its single-issue focus, that organization has in times past missed the big picture and endorsed Republican candidates (e.g. Lincoln Chafee). It'd be nice if their endorsement of Obama meant they're taking the larger picture into consideration, though that may not be the case. Given Hillary's rapidly diminishing chances, any pro-Choice organization would be smart to come out in favor of Obama.
Really, it's the old guard, largely white feminists who are missing the boat. Their silence amid the racist dog whistling of HRC surrogates was deafening. And as more "big picture" feminists explicitly endorse Obama, the old guard feminists who cling to Hillary will look increasingly petulant and irrelevant.
"You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound
by machopicasso on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:03:14 PM PDT
We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/
by anastasia p on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:23:47 PM PDT
replace their executive staff and board. As for the "Hey, NARAL supports Obama, lets give them money!" crowd here; Short attention-span, much?
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary, and those that don't. -8.25, -6.21
by Jacques on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:40:11 PM PDT
by kpbuick on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:54:25 PM PDT
The rest of the story has a (provisionally) happy ending.
No organization is perfect, but I'll tell you what--NARAL had our backs in November 2006 when we repealed the winger-hijacked legislature's odious law at the ballot box.
The "provisional" part is that another abortion ban gathered enough signatures to get on the ballot this fall. We have another big fight coming here in November; we all need to be on the same side. On this, we all are on the same side.
Prog
"No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." --MLK
by Progressive Witness on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:11:00 PM PDT
you can encourage and donate to them, more power to you. If my local office makes some noise against national NARAL's bleating, then, maybe. (IIRC, the CT NARAL split from their national office, and endorsed Lamont.) But I'm here in CA, I didn't hear squat about my local NARAL offices withholding financial support from the national organization when Lamont beat Lieberman in the primary. They also had nothing to say about another anti-choice voice on SCOTUS.
If your local SD NARAL had your back, good on them, and if you post something the next time it happens, I'll support them. The national NARAL can curl up in a corner and die, for all I care. Or fire Nancy, her fellow travelers, and reform the board. Until then, they are dead to me. <sound of tearing clothes>
by Jacques on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:23:19 PM PDT
about what they have to do or who they destroy, but clearly they don't care about what woman they put in the Whitehouse. Clinton has been so wrong on so many issues-- Iraq war, corporate lobbyists, Iran, the gas tax, flag burning, NAFTA, video games, etc --yet they still support this conservative shill. Amazing.
by Philoguy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:01:58 PM PDT
In other words, screw the will of the people - I will hold my breath and turn blue unless you bend to my specific wishes, dammit.
I have been voting for (what I felt) was superior male candidates for nearly 20 years, and they never win. Ever. It's May. It's time to get over it.
by msanthrope on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:07:59 PM PDT
... when Clinton supporters would talk about Hillary's record for defending women's rights? When they were positive?
Sigh. So long ago.
Stressed out? Have a baby sloth.
by droogie6655321 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:51:24 PM PDT
"You're not doing what I want? Well I'm going to cry and threaten and manipulate you emotionally instead of making a rational argument for my position!" Classic feminine passive-aggressive behavior.
My heart belongs to Kucinich...
by Wit Whither Wilt on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:12:58 PM PDT
worst enemies. And yes, I am a woman.
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. - William G. McAdoo (-3.38, -3.38)
by awnm on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:20:51 PM PDT
That can include any group.
The definition of insanity is voting the same way and expecting a different result. I'm talking to you FL,OH, KY, WV!
by Shhs on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:37:46 PM PDT
Sounds more like a 4 year old than a rational adult. Good grief!
"Live right. Think left." Gregory Peck
by bookwoman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:21:57 PM PDT
That's what comes to mind. It's the politics of the last 40 years. "Unless the world and everything is exactly how I want it, I will hurt my children. I will hurt those who come after me."
by Shhs on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:36:54 PM PDT
I'm embarrassed to hear anyone use "Hillary" and "feminist" in the same sentence.
Is is anything but a feminist.
John McCain is so (Ned) Divine!!
by Glinda on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:52 PM PDT
by docb on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:11:16 PM PDT
she's a powermad, narcissistic racist.
It's called the american dream because you have to be asleep to believe it. - G. Carlin
by RabidNation on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:33:27 PM PDT
a very bad Democrat, with a tentative grasp of reality.
Subtlety is the art of saying what you think and getting out of the way before it is understood.
by Granny Doc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:56:20 PM PDT
"acceptable human"? the second line may be justified by your observations of her campaign but "acceptable human" is kinda scarey.
You can't be the land of the free, if you aren't the home of the brave - The Wonder Moron
by dogheaven on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:05:44 PM PDT
comment, sorry.
She's a DLC triangulator and means-to-an-end political foe to anyone who goes against her. She can be a massively compromised jerk, IMHO. I also feel she'd be an "eh" leader, in terms of overall consistency and progressive judgements.
But, she's certainly an acceptable human.
"So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."
by wader on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:37:07 PM PDT
Superior woman. Now, where did I hear about that kind of rhetoric before...
I want my epitaph to read: He did whatever the fuck he wanted.
by Deltones on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:48:20 PM PDT
was there in South Dakota? Obama not Hillary! Obama stood up and answered the "all call" while Hillary was MIA.
by paul94611 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM PDT
completely out of control:
That’s why, when women in New Hampshire could vote in private, they came out in droves for Hillary. They'd seen more Hillary bashing than had Iowa's women, and the polls stopped too early to measure their collective reaction. What happened is that women stood up and said "We're fed up and we're not going to take it anymore! We won't sit idly by and watch, while you gang bang one of us."
I'm not sure why NY NOW would think it in its bests interests to allow this individual to ratchet up this sort of hatred. I know this person shouldn't claim represent me at all.
by GN1927 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:17:15 PM PDT
I read about Pappas back in January. RichmondDemocrat did a long post about her. Based on the things she's written I can only conclude that she's flat out nuts. She's a very angry and disturbed person with a completely warped view of the world.
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Ghandi
by Triscula on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:51:37 PM PDT
is coming soon and people like this can go crawl back under their rocks.
by GN1927 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:58:26 PM PDT
has been "flat-out nuts" for a long time.
Happily, the health and sanity of American feminism seems to be improving steadily as the "flat-out nuts" types (Dworkin, Steinem, McKinnon, Bass & Davis, etc) gradually recede into the sunset of irrelevancy.
by Night Train on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:12:59 PM PDT
I have my problems with Western feminism, and its exclusionary focus at times, but people like Pappas are not representative of feminism at all IMO.
by GN1927 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:23:13 PM PDT
And let's be thankful for that.
by Night Train on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:27:32 PM PDT
I'm sorry, I know this is politics, but there are points at which you owe it to yourself to hit the brakes on the speeding rhetoric-mobile. Using terms that imply rape over something like this is out of line.
I can't say this makes me regret those NOW rallies in the past, but it really surprises me and gives me pause.
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." - Justice A. Kennedy
by pylonsound on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:52:20 PM PDT
either. Totally agreed about the rhetoric and surprise that a person very familiar with the horrors of rape and its effect on women would use gang bang so carelessly and maliciously.
by GN1927 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:00:09 PM PDT
And Pappas is still around. The truth is NOW rakes in lots of money off of the outrage Pappas plays up. As a pro-life Democrat, seeing the pro-choice crowd in total disarray is nice.
Obama/Casey, my personal dream ticket.
by The Bagof Health and Politics on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:47:17 PM PDT
Just shameful.
Obama will win New York and I hope these people remember what total assholes they were and learn from it.
McCain is not getting my state. Is he getting yours?
by Sun dog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:19:42 PM PDT
memories about what they did and did not do during this primary. When Obama wins the presidency it'll be "gosh isn't it great that we're all working together to win?" and shit like that.
Hillary and her supporters will conveniently forget how fervently they pushed the "he can't win because he's black!" meme. Trust me, these people are not capable of admitting that they were wrong.
Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark
by cfaller96 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:55:18 PM PDT
When Obama wins the presidency it'll be "gosh isn't it great that we're all working together to win?" and shit like that.
Let's just get them on board.
Once the fog of war clears, I think some eyes will too.
by Sun dog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:37:21 PM PDT
"overzealous support" while pretending to be onboard, I'll mock them for the fools they are.
by conlakappa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:15:34 PM PDT
if her campaign weren't doomed . . . these angry 60's feminists would be Hillary's Reverend Wright . . .
by boogieandjive on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:20:23 PM PDT
would go from supporting Clinton to calling them "feminazis" faster than he could swallow a tab of Oxycontin.
by pgm 01 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:10:03 PM PDT
who can't tell the difference between rolls and roles. Trust me, a role in the hay is no more satisfying than a roll in a movie.
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. -John Stuart Mill
by word player on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:25:34 PM PDT
This might interest you
by DemocraticLuntz on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:26:44 PM PDT
but I couldn't help myself. I clicked it anyway... aarrrgh!
by word player on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:28:34 PM PDT
by Hannibal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:44:02 PM PDT
Roll me once, shame on...shame on you. Roll me twice...uh...won't get rolled again.
Bottled hot water for dehydrated babies? WTF?!
by JVolvo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:01:49 PM PDT
I'm sick to death of people who can't tell the difference between rolls and roles.
Really? Well, you can have free reign to be sick of that, so I won't argue that. Actually I could care less about it. Your comment did peak my interest in grammar, but such concerns are not reknown for publically getting people to tow the line. If Ghandi were alive he might think that Obama is a shoe-in for November, but at this point I refuse to loose my marbles over it.
by Night Train on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:26:11 PM PDT
by C S McCrum on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:10:38 PM PDT
It says so much about Marcia Pappas and the Clinton dead-enders that the letter doesn't really even address what one would think would be the subject matter that would decide any endorsement, the candidate's position on feminist political issues.
In those extraordinary circumstances Hillary Clinton truly went to bat for New Yorkers. That date marked the most devastating attack on US soil in our history. But Clinton’s experience, knowledge, and resourcefulness shone through in her crucial decisions for those awful times. And as far as military preparedness is concerned, Clinton’s huge bank of supporters happens to include an impressive number of notable generals who believe she is the very best candidate to deal with any war-time crisis.
Nothing about abortion. Nothing about equal pay for equal work. Nothing about child care. Nothing about women's health. Nothing about family and medical leave. Nothing about lesbian rights. Nothing about the rates of poverty among divorced women.
I could go on. But it says so much about Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and Pappas that the only issue this feminist organization can find to cite exemplary leadership is something utterly unrelated to women's issues.
One more piece of evidence that Barack Obama is the feminist in the race.
by andydoubtless on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:29:30 PM PDT
candidate you got. You don't got it, you can't use it.
by Christy1947 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:40:27 PM PDT
which was absolutely devastating to Iraqi women: huge increases in rapes, killing, kidnappings; increase in fundamentalist tendencies. But that's irrelevant to the same people who claim that electing Clinton would be the single best thing to benefit women and girls, as Alegre argued. I couldn't and can't stomache this argument.
by GN1927 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:29:02 PM PDT
I thought that was a little bit of a cheap shot, especially considering the rest of the letter was little more than a veiled threat to the Dem Party.
Lovely people.
by cfaller96 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:56:56 PM PDT
with the 09/11 reference, I thought Rudy G. had somehow dropped in to ghost-write a paragraph or two.
by conlakappa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:21:59 PM PDT
by Shhs on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:40:39 PM PDT
Don't they have a clue as to Obama's record? I thought feminists were supposed to be well-informed.
by Fabienne on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:30:29 PM PDT
in what a candidate is packing between their legs, not what they're packing between their ears.
The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake
by beltane on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:38:22 PM PDT
what about who's packing the Supreme Court? McCain over Obama for Clintonistas? Haha...bizarro world deluxe. I wonder how many of the "blog messages" are from the same IP addresses.
"We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson
by mayan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:43:09 PM PDT
by Shhs on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:41:05 PM PDT
are always messy. NOW sent people to Ohio, and made remarks that the Times reported which said they had to support her because she was running against a man, and he was a black man at that. Ambiguous but not a good sign. As if his candidacy were doubly offensive for it. The younger and out in the current street feminists don't do that sort of thing, but they are also out working while the old liners like me, sixty-one in two weeks, came up in a different time like Wright, and still reflect excessively the fights of that time and not this one. For the older, issues, what we now call policies, don't have as much to do with it because in those days, the only policy that mattered was WOMEN NOT ADMITTED HERE. Period. They couldn't get in close enough to the good stuff to have their positions on policies make any difference at all.
I've said it here before and it shows the point, I think. My late husband, an African American, and I tried to explain to our two children what it was like when we were coming up. To be blunt, they didn't believe us and couldn't even imagine a world like that. To me that was a good thing since it showed times had sufficiently changed that what happened to us was so rare in their world when they were in their teens and early 20's that they couldn't even understand the description. But in this case, the old ones don't give up their views and the young ones don't defer, and it is going to get louder before this is over.
by Christy1947 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:58:50 PM PDT
Look at Geraldine Ferraro, who completely represents the old-school Democrats.
That is a very good comment you've made. I've noticed that my own mother is bitter about this; my theory is that she continues to look back at the past. Her generation won a very difficult and ugly fight, as did African-Americans. However, it came at a huge cost - 40 years more or less of Republican rule and lost election after lost election.
It's time to stop looking at the past. We need to look towards the future and start to deal with the very real and monumental problems that face our country.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
by The Lighthouse Keeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:08:43 PM PDT
I know many older feminists who are pro Obama.
by sarakandel on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:06:20 PM PDT
was a racist too. She and her crowd were particularly outraged that black men had won the right to vote before white women did.
by Night Train on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:00:55 PM PDT
And an Obama victory would be really, really crimping to their six figure salaries. These people are merely the left's version of Sean Hannity...
by The Bagof Health and Politics on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:48:46 PM PDT
said back in January that John Edwards and Barack Obama 'gang-raped Hillary in a debate.'
Seriously.
If Obama had to answe
