wherein I contemplate the NARAL endorsement and the anger of Clinton's feminist supporters

Yesterday, I happened to catch a great diary by notksanymore about the fact that NARAL endorsed Senator Obama, and as a result, was receiving some harsh criticism from many of that fine organization's supporters.

So, I took a peek.  YIKES.   The vitriol came fast and furious.   Clearly, though, many Obama supporters had been alerted by that diary, and the later comments became more balanced.   Still, I estimate that overall, probably more than 2/3s of the commenters were extremely pissed off, and most of them threatened to never support NARAL financially again.

I left a message of thanks and solidarity with NARAL, and then hit the "donate" button (and I urge you to do so, too - they could use some love right now).
So, I got to thinking about the anger and vitriol, and something dawned on me.  

I'm a Gen Xer, but right on the Baby-Boomer cusp.  I'm a woman and a feminist, raised by feminists, and have always been staunchly pro-choice, although my feelings about abortion have changed over my adult life (probably due to my own pregnancies).

I have also owned up to (just yesterday, actually, on this very site) the fact that I have, upon occasion, voted solely on the basis of gender.   You know those elections - you studied up on the propositions and the candidates, but there's always some obscure race you didn't prepare for, and you have to choose six out of ten candidates or something. To avoid a completely random choice, I'll admit that, yeah, I've picked the women first.  It's funny - when I think about it, I probably know more conservative women than men... yet there I would be, voting solely by gender.  I had no idea if the people in question would represent me better or not... it's just giving a sister a fighting chance.

So, here's the rub:  my actions assert that gender is a valid reason to support a candidate... unless it's a male candidate.  Then, it's sexist to support him just because he's male.  Yeah, I see the reverse discrimination here.  [I defend myself with the fact that I have always felt guilty anytime I've voted without being fully informed on a race or issue.]

::

It dawned on me that the reason these particular Clinton supporters are PISSED OFF at NARAL is that they've finally got a strong, wealthy, well-positioned, serious female candidate for President, and she's not winning the nomination, and they can't for the life of them understand WHY every woman in America isn't taking to the streets for her.   OK, so WHY isn't Senator Clinton winning?  

I believe the gap is mainly one of generation.   Many feminists my age and younger take female empowerment just a little bit for granted.  The hardest part of the struggle was over by the time we were aware of it, and we've enjoyed the fruits of growing up knowing that, in theory, there were no limits.  The dream of a female President is not the stuff of fantasy - it is a certain future for us.  Because we haven't had to face sexism as severe or as ubiquitous as our mothers and aunts and grandmothers did, we have the luxury of seeing past gender... or at least seeing the pros and cons of candidates without gender coming into the equation in any big way.  

Now, "generation gap" doesn't tell the whole story - certainly there are women of my mother's generation who are staunch Obama supporters (I think my mom would have been one of them).  And there are feminist women far younger than me who are diehard Clinton supporters.   But I think, by and large, the demographics support my theory.

::

Speaking just for me, the story is this:  I had big reservations about Senator Clinton before I knew anything much about Obama.   The two biggies for me were her Iraq vote and what I believe is her unelectibility (due to her inherent disapproval rating): ever since the Clinton administration, her name has made conservatives' heads explode.  I can't sit and watch my party lose out AGAIN this time around - I just can't.  I knew in my heart that if she were the nominee, there would be a very good chance the "anti-Hillary" vote would put virtually any GOP candidate in the White House.

Then, along came Obama.  I thought he was too young - that he should wait until 2012 or 2016, but he jumped in.  The New Hampshire speech put me over.  I'm not a worshiper, in that I am resistant to voting for people I find overly charismatic or attractive (they make me suspicious, frankly).  But he's got it all - a great resume, a great platform, and great people-skills.   No, he doesn't possess ovaries, but I'll take that if it means no more Bush-like CEO's of our nation.

::

So, for the Baby-boomer (and older) feminists who feel pissed off, I extend an olive branch.  I understand and sympathize with your feelings.  Please know that the women of the generations behind you are still feminists, but because y'all did such a fine job raising us, we aren't so hungry for that first "Madame President"  that it has caused us to ignore the electoral and political reality around us.  We understand your need, and we hope you can understand ours.

It's easier for us: we've got time, and we'll see a woman there.  We hope you'll be here to help.

•  tip/flames - you know what to do.

  Hey, for you newbies - the rec button is on the right side, just under "Diary Drafts."  I'd be much obliged if you'd click it.  :D

  by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:19:28 AM PDT

  •  The problem as I see it...

    the anger is a reflection of choosing gender solidarity over the advancement of women's issues.... it speaks to the division and rancor that plagued the Clinton Administration and how it's supporters still simply don't get it.

    When you put supporting a Woman over supporting Women's Rights, well, at the end of the day, they can have McCain and kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye...

    Then they're just left with their own anger...

    by Steven R on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:25:00 AM PDT

    •  AMEN!.............n/t

      by Cronesense on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:30:40 AM PDT

    •  hear, hear!

      You nailed it, Steven R.    

      We also have to remember that NARAL is not a "women's organization" - unlike NOW and others.  It is solely an organization devoted to electing pro-choice politicians.

      by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:32:45 AM PDT

      •  I think it comes down to the specific leadership.

        For whatever reason, the leadership of NOW hasn't been that visionary, and not just in this election. It could be the whole organization needs reform, still stuck in the 70s/80s (you could say the same of the NAACP -- Julian Bond went out there pushing for Florida to be seating, which has everything to do with old-school backroom politicking).

        I don't know much about NARAL, but Planned Parenthood seems to be more in step with what's going on today. I remember seeing one of their ad campaigns on the subway and thinking how fresh its message was.

        It could just be a case of certain organizations needing to do a little soul-searching and ideological renewal. That's a job for us women to step up to.

        by brooklynliberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:41:32 AM PDT

        •  I have always seen PP as

          a service organization (heck, my husband got sterilized there, and I availed myself of their services many times in my pre-insurance years).

          They deserve all our support and care (and donations).

          I see NARAL as solely a political action group, although PP does some of this, too.

          by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:50:50 AM PDT

    •  Every group should beware acting reactionary.

      It's when the truth of being attacked (and Senator Clinton has certainly been attacked unfairly for her hair, her voice, "pimping" her daughter, PMS, etc etc etc) outweighs Any Other Factors of Why Things Have Turned Out This Way.

      That Everything Else (i.e. supporting a candidate who opposed the war, who speaks to a need for unity and large gestures, who values activists because he was one himself, who actually does have many years of elected experience and thus a solidly progressive voting record) may be the larger truth.

      But when one gets on the defensive because they are witnessing what feels like their own personal truth (like being passed up for that promotion because the young "inexperienced" guy came along, if that's a first-hand experience), they simply won't be able to acknowledge any other truth.

      For a lot of the supporters we're hearing from, they got on the defensive (and with some justification -- undeniably Clinton has faced certain prejudice because she's an Alpha Female, as Obama has faced prejudice for his Muslim name and blackness). Unfortunately defensiveness shuts you down from seeing the larger picture.

      by brooklynliberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:36:38 AM PDT

      •  beautifully said, brooklyn liberal

        But when one gets on the defensive because they are witnessing what feels like their own personal truth (like being passed up for that promotion because the young "inexperienced" guy came along, if that's a first-hand experience), they simply won't be able to acknowledge any other truth.

        by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:51:50 AM PDT

•  These Pro-Hillary Feminist supporters miss

  the whole point of what the women's movement is about.  

  For these women it is about the goal, the goal of a woman in the White House, a Woman President.  They feel so strongly about this, that the end justifies the means.

  I just watched KO's special comment, and you may ask what the hell does that do with women and NARAL?  Well, Bush believed that the end justified the means.  He believed that by invading Iraq and having an illegal occupation of Iraq the Americans would be "liberating" the Middle East.  These women seem to feel the same way about Hillary, that by making Hillary the President because somehow she is "entitled" to the position, or that the dream these women have had to see a women in office would somehow bring the women's movement full circle would mean all women would be rejoicing in the streets and that somehow women's lives would be so much better under the Hillary years than the Bush years.  

  Did these women not hear Hillary's obliverate Iran threats?  Did they not see her lie about being under sniper-fire?  Did they not see her play the race card and shoot whiskey while pandering to gun owners?  Is this what we would expect from a women when campaigning for President?  You see these means are not what I would want from a woman candidate, these means would not show me that she would be a compassionate President.  

  The means I would like to see from a female candidate are those of compassion, promises of working collissions to bring positive change, promises to govern as better people in a way that we will be honoring our future children.  These to me are feminism values, and this is how Barack Obama has campaigned.

  by kanuk on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:21:12 AM PDT

  •  absolutely

    one of my freedoms in this day and age is that I am free to evaluate all candidates based on my assessment of their skills... not on gender.  

    If I do choose a female candidate, she will be the superior candidate in every way - head and shoulders above the rest.

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:23:29 AM PDT

  •  FEMINISM VS GENDER ISSUES

    First, as one of those "older, white feminists" I keep writing comments that we are not all alike.  I do not think this is a generational issue.  This is about how people view feminism.  If they view feminism as concerned with gender justice which is part of a larger movement for social justice and progressive politics, they are more likely to support people like Obama and Edwards. For this group of feminists the issues are about justice as it relates to gender and race and class and sexual orientation and religion and disability and so on. They all intersect.  Groups like NARAL and NOW attract a very diverse group of women along the political spectrum.  They are not necessarily progressive or even feminist, although they may be.

    Second, Kanuk makes a very important point.  What does it mean to be a feminist?  Viewed through her lens, and mine, Hillary Clinton's actions take on another meaning.  I could never see anyone who was involved in red baiting and race baiting as feminist.  Or someone who wanted to change the rules of the party to suit herself, after she had committed to them-- and then went on to distort and lie about her position and others.

    It is one thing to be ambitious and try to win.  It is another to engage in smears and lies.  Her style of politics is not feminist to me.

    Kanuk writes in her comment above:  

    Did these women not hear Hillary's obliterate Iran threats?  Did they not see her lie about being under sniper-fire?  Did they not see her play the race card and shoot whiskey while pandering to gun owners?  Is this what we would expect from a women when campaigning for President?  .....

    The means I would like to see from a female candidate are those of compassion, promises of working collissions to bring positive change, promises to govern as better people in a way that we will be honoring our future children.  These to me are feminism values, and this is how Barack Obama has campaigned.

    I agree.

    In the 1970s, when I was going for a PhD in sociology I once sat in a room with 20 feminists.  We each went around the room to say what feminism meant to us.  There were 20 different definitions.  But one definition that I came to identify with is that feminism is not just about issues, although it is certainly about that too.  It is about a way of looking at the world, a way of asking and answering questions.  A way that invites people into the process that is inclusive.  It is about coalition building at the grassroots.  So for me,for today, feminism is about Obama

    by sarakandel on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:28:12 AM PDT

    •  Exactly. Well said. n/t

      by Cat Whisperer on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:06:08 AM PDT

    •  Wow, really well put.

      But one definition that I came to identify with is that feminism is not just about issues, although it is certainly about that too.  It is about a way of looking at the world, a way of asking and answering questions.  A way that invites people into the process that is inclusive.  It is about coalition building at the grassroots.  So for me,for today, feminism is about Obama

      That's exactly right.

      by brooklynliberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:20:40 AM PDT

    •  Beautiful, sarakandel

      thank you.

      If it's not a generational difference (in that the generation ahead of mine had to confront sexism much more often, while mine inherited a society that is much more pro-Woman, in general)... what do you think is the reason for the Clinton demographic?

      by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:14:41 AM PDT

  •  He did "campaign" that way (a couple "sweeties

    notwithstanding).
     And if voting "present" when the tough votes were called, then maybe his record is right, as well.  But nobody has pointed to anything he ever did, wrote, or passed that assisted feminism.  No reason to think he is openly antagonistic to feminist issues; unless dismissing women he wants to ignore by calling them "sweetie" counts.
     But he is handsome and very smooth talking.  So the leadership of NARAL decided it was time to try to defeat a woman who turned down Wall Street to use her Yale Law degree for children's issues and who has spent 30 years campaigning for women, raising money for pro-choice candidates and advocating all over the world for women's rights as human rights.
     The question in my mind is "why?"  Why divide NARAL by choosing between two pro-choice candidates.  Soon enough, one of ours will be facing a candidate who would overrule Roe v Wade.  Why not keep their group united until there was a candidate we all can favor facing off against one we all should oppose?  
      Not one word from the leadership of NARAL or from the Obama supporters has addressed that issue.

    by MdFriendofHillary on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:19:09 AM PDT

    •  Naral clearly addressed the "why" question.

      Perhaps you didn't like the answer, but it was addressed.

      The reason "why him, why now" is because that organization, like many of us, see the protracted primary as damaging to the nominee, and ultimately, to our party's chances of success in November.

      While you're interested (it appears) in NARAL staying neutral on the Democratic nominee until there is an official Democratic nominee, NARAL has said that it is clear that Obama IS the nominee, and that, by throwing their support behind him now, others who are more timid about making the move (because of fear of just the sort of reaction NARAL has seen) will have the courage to follow.   NARAL did not act before it was a virtual certainty: Obama's got an insurmountable lead in popular vote, pledged delegates, and supers.   I didn't want to get into this part of it, though - I really wanted to address the vitriol factor.  

      I understand election disappointment (hell, I lived through the 2000 and 2004 elections, didn't I?) - but the commenters on NARAL's blog who were using Rush Limbaugh-esque language (like "B. Hussein Obama") was seriously sickening.

      by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:24:31 AM PDT

•  I was born in '65

  so technically I think I am a GenX'er and my feminist/democratic grounding is very similar to yours. And I am solidly behind Obama. I feel no conflict whatsoever about that. Yes, it will happen (sooner rather than later, I hope) but it has to be the Right Woman for the job!

  Tipped and rec'd.

  by MaskedKat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:21:58 AM PDT

  •  1965 for me, too

    Clearly, we have an identical stance on this.  How much is because of our shared birth year (and hence, similar life experiences)?

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:24:40 AM PDT

  •  1970 here

    And I totally agree.

    by Triscula on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:54:50 AM PDT

•  Your title sounds like chapter heading from

  Machiavelli's The Prince,  but

  Your ideas are sound. ;)

  by Zebras on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:22:28 AM PDT

•  remember this used to be a head vs. heart race?

  If you go with your head, you have to vote Hillary; if you go with your heart, you have to vote Obama.  Remember that?

  The response by Clinton's feminist supporters are growing increasingly visceral and emotional, and decreasingly cerebral and reasoned.

  Olive branches are not going to work with them.  They're not going to with many Obama supporters (of which I am one) either, but it is remarkable to indicate that a campaign that was built on "think about it long and hard, and make the more reasoned choice" is really not.

  by obligatorydiscord on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:23:51 AM PDT

•  Hillary Clinton's candidacy

  is not a referendum on all things female. When did she suddenly become the banner icon for Feminists?

  I think given the political climate of today and 5 years of a senseless war in Iraq, any historic candidacy (first woman, first black person, first Latino) who was on record as having voted for the war would have hit complications.

  Identity and support of your own can only go so far. As it should be.

  by brooklynliberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:23:54 AM PDT

  •  sometimes we feminists can forget

    that our best interests do not always lie with the person with the ovaries.

    Women's issues also include the war, poverty, and the economy, all of which affect a large number of women.

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:26:55 AM PDT

•  Frankly, politics isn't about personalities or

  individuals, or even first.

  Whether or not there's a female president, or a black president is kind of besides the point.

  Politics is too important for permanent friends or permanent enemies. We have only permanent interest.

  Women, minorities, progressives, lovers of the constitution? We all have permenant interest in how this government functions, and relates to us. And what the person in the office of the precidency looks like is much less important that what the person in the office does with their power.

  Do they promote our interest? Or do they oppose them? And would we trade the proper appearance for our lives and homes?

  by Zebras on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:26:38 AM PDT

•  Maybe it's not NARAL. Maybe they're just pissy.

  if Edwards sold out in order to get his fundraising spread via Omail, I’m still disgusted with him, and really disgusted with Obama for requiring that price of him.

  its pretty obvious at this point that getting access to Obama’s donor list was part of the deal here — and that Edwards gave Obama his donor list as well.

  I find it interesting how Obama has "commodified" his supporters — with each passing day, it becomes more obvious that Obama’s support in the Democratic establishment has nothing to do with Obama the candidate, and everything to do with Obama the ATM.

  This sounds like a way to launder illegal campaign donations. Set up fake personas with matching paypal-type accounts and then funnel the money to a candidate.

  http://correntewire.com/...

  by Joe Beese on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:26:41 AM PDT

  •  certainly, it's not JUST naral supporters

    being on the losing side tends to make one pissy, agreed.

    Still, there was a particular vitriol on NARAL's site yesterday that was shocking in the very fact that these words were being written by FEMINISTS.  People saying they would vote for McCain just because they were so pissed off - that really hit me.

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:28:49 AM PDT

    •  Like I said in reply to

      ... an absolutely hideous diary last night, this type of irrational acrimony is closer to Rush Limbaugh's definition of feminism than the reasoned and rational movement I have encountered over the years.  It's hurting Hillary, it's hurting the party and it's hurting feminism itself.

      by bustacap on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:40:07 AM PDT

      •  hear, hear

        I was actually on the verge of tears, reading some of those posts.  I know they come from a place of deep hurt, and from life experiences far more difficult than mine... but the fact that people who call themselves feminists could spout those ugly, hateful r/w memes was just hurtful.

        I am probably sexist in saying this, but women should know better... we should BE better than that.

        by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:54:00 AM PDT

        •  True! A hard question indeed

          is actually sexist to say we expect more of ourselves as women? I suppose.

          I mean I want to say Feminism should get behind women soldiers who pick up guns and join the military because this is what they choose. But I also want to say peace advocacy/anti-militarism should remain an inherent Feminism value.

          I guess we can't have it both ways in the end.

          by brooklynliberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:00:11 AM PDT

•  NARAL is always finger-in-the-wind

  It wasn't progressivism that prompted this endorsement -- remember, NARAL endorsed Lieberman over Lamont.  NARAL's goal is to simply have as many politicians in their corner on their issue -- thus, when a pro-choice incumbent is up against a pro-choice challenger, they always go for the incumbent.  In this situation, there is no incumbent -- so NARAL was clearly waiting for one challenger to become inevitable.  Thus, the irony of an act of political calculation giving a boost to a campaign of idealism.  

  by Finck II on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:27:27 AM PDT

  •  Yup.

    NARAL kind of sat this one out until it was obvious who the winner would be. Fair enough. You have to have some of that common sense if you want your issues to survive.

    Honestly though, I kind of feel that way about John Edwards too.

    by brooklynliberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:45:12 AM PDT

  •  but that's the purpose of NARAL

    to support the pro-choice candidate who has the best shot at winning.   They have to think pragmatically before being idealistic.

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:55:05 AM PDT

    •  Well, I think their "pragmatism" is very flawed.

      It leads them to support individual Republicans who are pro-choice -- but when the basic philosophy of the GOP is virulently anti-choice, supporting people who will vote for Republican leadership in Congress is ultimately very self-defeating.  And then there is the larger issue of just how pragmatic it is to back Republicans who shaft other parts of the progressive coalition -- workers, minorites, etc. -- and then expect those progressives to come to YOUR assistance when you need it.

      The problem isn't NARAL's pragmatism -- it's NARAL's tremendously short-sighted definition of pragmatism.  I'm in favor of anything that helps Obama's cause... but this endorsement is only useful to the extent that it contributes to the sense that the race is effectively over and now EVERYONE is getting on the Obama band wagon.

      by Finck II on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:46:33 AM PDT

•  Does anyone remember Joe Lieberman?

  Besides Jane, I mean.

  So NARAL "endorses" after the outcome is certain, and the Progressive ATM is open again? NARAL's silence on Alito okay, too?

  Short attention-span, much?

  by Jacques on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:27:30 AM PDT

  •  again, I say -

    NARAL is committed to ELECTING pro-choice candidates.  Pragmatically, it is in their best interest to analyze which pro-choice candidate has the best shot at actually getting the job.

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:01:46 AM PDT

  •  funny, re-reading your comment...

    I am struck by one thing:  most of the people against NARAL's action deplore the timing as being TOO EARLY ("why couldn't they wait until it was official?").   You appear to think they should have done it months ago.  

    ?

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:27:22 AM PDT

•  you know, I can understand

  the rage if EMILY'S LIST had gone and endorsed Obama because their mission is to get women elected to office, pro choice women. But NARAL has a slightly different mission and Obama is fully aligned with that mission and not being a woman has no impact on that.

  I posted this in yesterday's diary. It's an old video but it demonstrates pretty clearly why he's the better choice.

  by Buffalo Girl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:27:34 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, I give EMILY's List a pass on that

    Their raison d'etre is electing pro-choice Democratic women and Hillary is definitely a pro-choice Democratic woman, so it was a no-brainer for them.

    I've held off on donating to them this year till the primary is decided, but I'll donate again as soon as it's over. They do great work, no hard feelings.

    I'm still a little miffed at NARAL over endorsing Lieberman though, now that I'm reminded of that. What the hell did they do that for?

    by tjekanefir on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:34:48 AM PDT

    •  True.

      EMILY's List was doing their job in supporting Clinton. It would have been really weird if they supported Obama or Edwards.

      And although I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, I respect that she does bring certain strengths to the table, and that there were good reasons for groups like EMILY's List to support her, beyond gender identity. She pushed legislation through on Plan B contraception, she had a more inclusive health care proposal, and a history of supporting teachers/education. All solid reasons for women's groups to have endorsed her.

      by brooklynliberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:48:57 AM PDT

      •  where the money goes

        The longer Clinton stays in the race, the longer Emily's List dumps money into her campaign instead of supporting women "down ticket" who could really use the money more.

        by Nellcote on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:27:34 AM PDT

•  I doubt that many women in Iraq...

  would want to vote for a woman who advocated the rape of thier country.

  Especially the hundreds of thousands of mothers whose sons and daughters have died in the violence of this invasion/occupation.

  by Dr Funkenstein on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:28:20 AM PDT

•  I understand their annoyance actually

  For reasons that don't have anything to do with gender: Hillary has a great record on choice. She couldn't really be much better about it. So it must be frustrating for her opponents to see a group endorse somebody else over her even if the other guy is pro-choice too.

  I felt the same way when LCV went and endorsed Linc Chafee. Sure, Linc Chafee had a good environmental record, but so did his opponent who I was supporting, so why did they feel the need to choose sides?

  It's always harder to lose an issue-based endorsement on an issue your candidate is strong on than the general endorsement of an individual which you assume is based on any number of things including personality, electability, and so on. I'd probably feel miffed about it if I was for Hillary too.

  by tjekanefir on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:28:57 AM PDT

  •  but NARAL is in the business of

    getting pro-choice candidates ELECTED (not necessarily getting women elected).  They have to throw their support behind the candidate who is both pro-choice and most likely to succeed.

    They did this right.

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:34:40 AM PDT

    •  Not really

      If they were going to wait till the last possible second to see which candidate would win the primary, then they could just as well have waited till Hillary conceded and then endorsed Obama, on the theory that both candidates are pro-choice and either would be better than McCain.

      Their endorsement will be valuable to Obama in the general and I appreciate it, but squeaking it in during the last days of the primary does feel a little panderish to me, and if the tables were turned, I'd be very annoyed by it. I know I didn't like it when they endorsed Lieberman over Lamont.

      by tjekanefir on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:42:41 AM PDT

      •  perhaps NARAL, like many of us,

        believe that Obama the nominee will be stronger in the General if this primary is over, and if it is perceived that Democrats and other progressives are closing ranks behind the presumptive nominee.

        I think they are, as they said, acting as leaders in the hopes that this action will empower others to follow.

        by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:05:09 AM PDT

•  NARAL is not an organization...

  that I support or care about anymore...in fact, I think their endorsement is a net negative in the GE for Obama...I used to support them but no longer do...

  by dvogel001 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:29:12 AM PDT

•  I think there's a generational divide too

  It's not whole; these things never are.  

  I 100% consider myself a feminist.  I kept my maiden name; I'm raising my sons to believe that women can do and be anything.

  And yet?  I've chosen to stay home with my boys, even now that they're in school.  It's been surprising to me that this is the choice that I've made (and it's completely my choice, my husband is good either way), but I don't feel at all that I'm sacrificing anything.  I don't have the sole burden of childcare or housework (we share that), so perhaps that helps.  I also make contributions to the world through my volunteer activities.  But, because I'm so secure in my choices and understand WHY we made them, I don't care if someone else makes different choices.  This is my version of feminism.

  I hope that I can say this without coming off as trollish, but I think that I view the Clinton years through the prism of who I was then (younger, idealistic, without children).  I fought and supported them, but I was always was somewhat uncomfortable about the way that they treated other women--the "bimbo eruptions," Sister Souljah and Lani Guinier, to lump in a couple examples.  And generationally, I felt closer in many ways to Monica Lewinsky than I did Hillary Clinton.  Although I sympathized with them both, I felt she got the rawer deal.  I wonder sometimes if I had been older, a married woman with children like I am now, if I would have experienced that on the other side...

  Anyway, it's a complex issue and one I've thought about a lot, ever since my dad asked me last fall, "Why aren't you supporting Clinton?  I would have thought that would have been a natural."

  I think true feminism in some way is to say that although I support her candidacy, she is not the right choice for me.  

  This election has also made it clear to me that the country is ready for a woman president.  It's no longer a question of if, but when.

  by dewberry on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:30:46 AM PDT

  •  dewberry - not trollish at all

    I agree wholeheartedly with your entire comment.  

    My mother would have been disappointed if I had been a stay-at-home mom instead of building a career.  That's what she fought so hard to get out of!   (Right now in my family, I'm the one with the job, and my husband's the one who is home when the kids get home.)  But the fact is, I would be just as fulfilled if that were my choice.

    This election has also made it clear to me that the country is ready for a woman president.  It's no longer a question of if, but when.

      YES - and I would add, "and who."

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:38:14 AM PDT

  •  I agree. And I say the country is ready

    for a woman right now. We happen to have a fabulous candidate poised to win who isn't female this year, so it's just timing.

    But the country is ready.

    by brooklynliberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:53:19 AM PDT

  •  Not if, not when, but who.

    by ben masel on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:07:06 AM PDT

•  The source of the anger, in my opinion

  Not to repeat myself, but here goes:

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by Rich in PA on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:34:03 AM PDT

  •  agree and disagree

    I totally agree with your first statement:

    NARAL, in their endorsement of Obama, made no claim that he was better than Clinton on the issues, or even that he was equal to her on the issues--they merely said that he was fine.  Their two reasons for supporting him were that (a) he's going to be the nominee, and (b) the healing process in the Demcratic party has to start.

    After that, not so much.

    NARAL has a completely different purpose than NOW.  It is, as it's statement of purpose says, committed to getting pro-choice candidates ELECTED... not choosing one over the other because of gender.  It's dedicated to privacy and abortion rights.  Yes, the latter is solely a women's issue, but it is by no means a "de facto women's rights organization."

    If their mission statement were to elect WOMEN, then this endorsement would make no sense.

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:42:46 AM PDT

  •  Bullshit.

    Being a women's rights organization isn't the same as being EMILY'S List.  Believe it or not, Roe is founded on the right to privacy, which applies to everyone, regardless of gender.  NARAL endorsed the candidate with the best chance to succeed, knowing that both are pro-choice.  The reaction of Clinton supporters on the NARAL blog is pure sexism, and they ought to be shamed of themselves.

    by Drew J Jones on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:53:44 AM PDT

•  The reason is Hillary

  I am one of those women who is supposed to be solidly in Hillary's camp but is firmly with Obama.  Contrary to the polls, many of my sisters are here with me.  There are three major reasons why I am not supporting her.

  First, I have no interest in living through another Clinton WH.  I am old enough to remember the constant scandals and drama.  Given the problems our country faces this is the last thing we need at this point in time.  I don't believe it would be any different this time around, just look at the drama that has surrounded her campaign.

  Second, while I too have supported women in the past solely because they are women,Hillary has too many issues in my mind, the first being trust or lack thereof.  Every campaign stop brings another promise depending on the voting group she is talking to.  Where are her priorities?  From where I sit, her sole priority is getting elected which means it is impossible to discern what her platform will be once elected.  I suspect that the first four years every decision will be tempered with what she needs to do get elected for a second term.  I have had enough of a president that is wholly untrustworthy.

  Third, Hillary's run is not based on anything she has accomplished on her own, it is based almost entirely on what Bill did and his status as a former president.  In my mind, this puts feminism back decades.  For those of us in her age group that suceeded solely on hard work and making it on our own merits, her campaign is highly insulting.

  While I still hope to see a woman in the WH in my life as a legacy for my daughter and granddaughter, I believe that will happen.  There are any number of women in the Democratic party that are up and coming and have far better credentials than Hillary.  When that time comes, I will throw my support behind her and do whatever I can to see her elected.

  by FoxfireTX on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:34:23 AM PDT

  •  Well said!

    It was with dreary, cheerless dread that I watched The Inevitable One launch her run for the White House, it was with growing disgust that I observed how she ran her campaign.  Your analysis of why she's not right for the presidency is spot on.

    by ETF on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:23:21 AM PDT

•  Well said

  As a mom, it can be really painful to watch your children wander off the reservation and pursue dreams and ideals you don't share, but it's necessary, I did it, and they will too.  What we have here is a successfully raised younger generation of women who are no longer self-conscious about things that older women will never, ever, be able to let go of. I hope for healing, and in order for that to happen, the disrespectful and demeaning posts really need to stop.   Please use the hide button for anyone who uses the words post menopausal, old bag, hysterical female, etc.  

  THEY ARE SEXIST EVEN IF YOU DON'T THINK THEY ARE!!!!

  by rb6 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:36:23 AM PDT

  •  But wasn't that your goal?

    The past-feminists fought tooth and nail to make sure their daughters would never have to face the institutionalized oppression under which their mothers suffered and that they were struggling to end.

    Now that so much progress has been made, these young women today have no concept of some of the horrors women dealt with in the 60's.  They don't get the bumper stickers that have a picture of a coat hanger in a circle with a line through it.  The ERA means nothing to them.

    Wasn't this the point?  Doesn't this show that its working?

    I'd rather have a daughter to which the idea of "she was raped because she was asking for it" or "back alley abortions" or "women wear white at their wedding so that they will match the other kitchen appliances" and all that other demeaning horseshit has zero resonance with them then to have them suffer through some version of the same thing in order to engender enough of the sympathetic rage to keep them in-line with my beliefs.

    by Wisper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:43:03 AM PDT

    •  Right

      You can intellectually understand the divide, but it can still hurt. And when people are actively insulting you, as sometimes occurs here, you might not be primed for understanding and conciliation.

      Plus, in all honesty, I think more and more some of the vitriol is being "planted" by non-Clinton supporters.  When I went over to Pro-Choice Blog I saw many repeat statements from people with the same name -- no new thought just making sure that every 30 posts or so they would be re-read.  That's a troll, for sure, and there were a lot of them.

      by rb6 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:47:39 AM PDT

  •  I agree, rb6

    and if I see any posts that are demeaning to women (especially women who are my elders), regardless of the politician they're supporting, I will HR it.

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:44:18 AM PDT

  •  I can say I've seen

    any comments here remotely resembling these:

    I hope for healing, and in order for that to happen, the disrespectful and demeaning posts really need to stop.   Please use the hide button for anyone who uses the words post menopausal, old bag, hysterical female, etc.

    I would certainly hide rate them if I did.  I have, however, seen a lot of overt racism over at MyDD, Hillaryis44, and TaylorMarsh.  I've even seen it in Clinton supporter diaries here.  I've also seen Clinton supporters like Alegre make blatantly dishonest claims in their diaries and then refuse to change them when documentation is provided refuting these claims.  I've also seen a lot of what I believe is irrational support for a subpar candidate with little genuine experience and even worse judgment, and an apparent desire to get this candidate in the Whitehouse at all costs, even when it means placing this candidate before good policy.  I've tried to be patient, but given the growing chorus of Clinton supporters saying they'll vote McCain I've nearly lost any good will I had.

    by Philoguy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:06:25 AM PDT

•  Very well-done, DithoT.....

  and several comments this diary is attracting are excellent so I won't cover the obvious.  I will add, I just hope that the bitter taste in the mouth that Hillary's behavior and attitude of entitlement has left won't make it that much harder when the next woman tries to become a candidate.

  by Cronesense on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:42:43 AM PDT

  •  God, I hope not, Cronesense!

    Thank you - your comment means a lot to me, as I have a lot of respect for you and your presence here.

    I may be a silly optimist, but I truly believe that the next woman candidate will have an easier time of it, precisely because of Senator Clinton - and for that, we owe her gratitude.  

    Clearly, any future female politician can point to the fact that it's been proven that women can be viable candidates - look, Hillary came close to capturing the Democratic nomination!  

    Also, any future female politician with Presidential aspirations can clearly see what NOT to do by studying this race.  Actually, that goes for politicians of either gender, now that I think about it!

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:48:23 AM PDT

  •  I don't think so...

    Clinton is a unique case and a unique personality.  This is about Clinton and her tactics, not women.

    by Philoguy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:07:16 AM PDT

•  Anyone see the "Misogyny I Wont Miss"

  column in today's WaPo Op-Ed page?

  I am not a Hillary fan by any means, but there is some shit that needs to be said there.

  by Wisper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:47:01 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the link

    Anyone who thinks this campaign has been misogyny free is ignoring the obvious.

    by martydd on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:57:07 AM PDT

  •  Yes, thanks to you, I just did.

    I've read Cocco's work at other sites; she's a great writer, and her points in this column are worth addressing because they are real.

    I'm the only boy of a four-child family.  Two older sisters, one younger.  Mom went to work as soon as my younger sister started kindergarten.  Dad was a cop.

    In our average-white family it was never acceptable to put women down on basis of their sex alone.  I was raised to believe women should be allowed to do anything they can do.

    Obviously, as Cocco points out, there's still a lot of the USA that just doesn't get this.

    by cn4st4datrees on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:57:40 AM PDT

  •  Yes, this shit needs to be said.

    I was volunteering at a Michelle Obama rally at the University where I teach, and there was some dude in a "bros before hos" t-shirt.  I'm thinking, does this kid have any idea how inappropriate and offensive that is?  Sure, it's good for a laugh at the frat house, but he was coming to hear a WOMAN speak, for goodness sake.

    What I am wary of is some HRC supporters who cite these instances of sexism (which are far to frequent) as the reason she didn't get the nomination.   What they don't get is that the people who say that crap aren't the reason - it's people like ME who are the reason she didn't get the nomination.

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:23:23 AM PDT

    •  Indeed

      The column was helpful because it reminds us of some of the uglier, misogynistic episodes in this campaign.  But ultimately I don't think that Obama won because of misogyny -- I think he won because he was able to mobilize young people to beat the band (including many women below a certain age) and there's frankly a lot of residual fatigue about the Clinton brand.

      If Clinton had been able to appeal to women, as a bloc, the way Obama has appealed to AAs as a bloc, she would have won.  But she didn't, and I don't think that's because the women who didn't vote for her are misogynists who have been brain-washed by the patriarchy.

      by novaseeker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:29:48 AM PDT

  •  It is difficult

    to concede that misogyny played a role in this campaign because Clinton supporters pick this up and make it the only and primary reason that she fell behind.  They willfully ignore what I believe are the far more predominant reasons:  1) the strength of Obama as an inspiring candidate, 2) relying on big money donors and alienating grass roots, 3) a very disorganized campaign staff, 4) ugly campaign tactics, 4) bad policy decisions such as the Iraq war vote, 5) dishonesty, etc.  It would be much easier to talk about these things if Clinton supporters were more honest when they bring them up.

    by Philoguy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:17:20 AM PDT

    •  And yes, I won't miss

      any of the things outlined in that article either.  I really wish the editorialist had also brought up the ugly racist things like Ferraro's refrain as things she wouldn't miss.

      by Philoguy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:18:02 AM PDT

•  Agree, and I'd like to add..

  This discussion of race or gender as a motivator or a detractor is often over-simplified.  In my eyes there's a distinct difference between saying, "Both candidates are pretty good but I'd really like to break the color or gender barrier here so I'll get behind the (black guy/woman)" and saying, "I'll never vote for a (black guy/woman)".  One is motivated by aspirations and the idea of progress and the other is motivated by hate or fear.  One is about an attempt toward progress and the other is about holding someone back.  It is my sincere hope (and belief) that many, many of Clinton's female supporters that chose her because they wanted to get behind a sister did so out of a sense of aspiration and not hate.  

  I believe that most of Clinton's feminist inspired supporters are certainly passionate about wanting to leap this hurdle, but that doesn't mean that they hate men or that they can't support a male candidate.  When Clinton either concedes or is defeated they will support the Democratic nominee.  I'm sure there will be disappointment, but there's also pragmatism.  Most reasonable people will see no need to hate or obstruct Obama simply because their hopes of seeing a female President will need to wait a little longer.

  This same truth could have been applied to Obama's African American supporters that were inspired by the hope of breaking the color barrier in the White House.  It could have been, had Clinton run a cleaner and more positive campaign.  Unfortunately there is genuine and, in my opinion, understandable anger in the African American community about the racist tones that her campaign has struck.

  In these discussions of ethnic and gender identity in politics the distinction between positive support and negative support (or obstructing) is rarely touched upon but I think it's relevant.

  by Triscula on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:51:02 AM PDT

•  Sending money to HRC instead of NARAL

  One diary I read on myDD said people should take the money they would have sent to NARAL and send it to Hillary.

  Good idea, take money that would have gone to fight for reproductive rights and send it to the pockets of Penn, Wolfson, McAuliff, and the rest of the bozos who ran the worst campaign in history

  by Sardaukar on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:51:38 AM PDT

•  as the hardcore Clinton supporters like to imply

  Obama is more "effeminate" than Clinton, which is why I think he'd make a great president.

  by Stroszek on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:54:29 AM PDT

•  They were acting like NARAL had endorsed George

  W Bush.  Clinton will not win the Democratic primary and many of those that were angry thought the endorsement was intended to undermine Clinton, which it clearly was not.

  It irritates me further that so many feminist groups have seen fit to distort Obama's record and characterize Obama as if he is an anti-woman, anti-choice candidate, which he clearly is not.  He received a 100% ratings by both NARAL as Senator 100% rating from the Chicago NOW when he was a legislator in Illinois. In fact, many of his "Present" votes were at the behest of local pro-choice groups.  Sigh!!!!

  I guess these pro-choice ladies will be voting for who they believe to be the true pro-choice candidate in November: John McCain?

  by ecostar on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:59:19 AM PDT

  •  Yes that alone made me furious with Clinton

    and these type of supporters.

    If you truly care about reproductive rights for women, YOU DO NOT LIE about a candidate's stance on it. It is manipulative to women, who deserve to know the truth about who they can trust. Not to mention it can undercut support for your cause if you tell people not to trust/fund someone who is their advocate and will hold a lot of power.

    Some members of Chicago NOW really ticked me off with trying to present Obama as weak on choice, among others.

    by brooklynliberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:04:45 AM PDT

•  59-year-old woman here

  I'm old enough to remember when the newspaper classifieds had separate "Help Wanted - Male" and "Help Wanted - Female" sections.  Oh, yes, they did, hard as it is to imagine now.  I've been a feminist since the movement started, would love to see a woman as President, and share the diarist's analysis of why Clinton is NOT that woman.

  by ETF on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:13:47 AM PDT

  •  Thank you, ETF

    your words mean a lot to me.

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:24:24 AM PDT

•  Beautifully written!

  I, too, understand the resentment over this endorsement.  Although I think it is clear to me, and many others, that Obama seems to have what it takes to bring us together on the issue of abortion (and other issues, as well).  

  That said, and on a slightly different note, I hope that Obama does not ignore the call to be inclusive when he picks his running mate and, hopefully, his White House staff.

  I trust that he'll make his decisions carefully.  He has most definitely shown that he is quite thoughtful.

  by mamalovesobama on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:28:01 AM PDT

  •  thank you, mamalovesobama

    If Obama could bring this country together on abortion, that would be thrilling!  I am a huge supporter, but I fear that there are things that even he can't do.  :D

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:32:49 AM PDT

•  I agree that younger women tend to

  take a lot of freedoms their mothers earned for granted. We do expect to live to see a woman in the White House and frankly, I would love to see that. Just not this woman. I think she might mess it up for the rest of us and do more damage to women's advancement than good. Espcially considering her already dismal negatives.

  Great diary.

  by Julia Rain on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:47:54 AM PDT

  •  thank you, Julia Rain

    I agree 100%.

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:31:42 AM PDT