Hysterical women
Disclaimer: I have not yet figured out who I support for the Democratic nomination for President. My number one guy, Bill Richardson, left the race a few weeks ago, and I'm hopeful that he'll find a prominent place in the new administration. I didn't like Edwards all that much. I'm rather happy that my choices are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, because I know, regardless of which ends up with the nomination, that the winner will be a good for the country. I feel much better about the 2008 slate of candidates than I did the 2004.
Yesterday, Hank on Lawtalkers asked whether or not Ted Kennedy's endorsement had any relevance. This was my response. (Assume that I had a brain fart on how to spell Senator Obama's first name.)I was thinking a lot about this question at lunch.
I think a lot of Democrats are similar to my parents. They like both Hillary and Barak, but they're not sure which one to back. My dad's a hard core feminist and sort of leans Hillary. My mom's (bipartisan) book club read Barak's first book, and she came away really liking him. I think that they sort of lean Barak, but they also really like Hillary too. It's a difficult choice for them.
My mom was in the first class of White House interns from the Kennedy administration, and the Kennedy name to them means something to my parents and--I suspect--Democrats in my parents' generation. They like Ted Kennedy and don't think he's as irrelevant as most of the people on this board seem to*. His getting into the fray at this juncture rather than standing back until the convention sort of tells them that maybe one candidate is actually better than the other for the party and for the country.
Barak Obama isn't really going to have a problem with younger Democrats. The older ones that look for experience and somewhat of a known commodity might look for cues from people whose opinions they trust on someone like Barak Obama. Someone like Ted Kennedy, who has been around the Democratic block a few times and can spot the real deal, is someone they may trust.
I don't think the Kerry endorsement means all that much, but I think that the Kennedy endorsement (especially on the heels of the South Carolina debacle/victory) could mean that Democrats that didn't really care one way or another** might come out and vote.
*I'm not sure if that's just posturing and rhetoric or that it's honest opinion. Ted Kennedy serves prominently on a lot of health care committees, so he's never been particularly irrelevant to me.
**By that, I mean that they think that either Barak or Hillary would be perfectly ok, not that they don't think that the nomination is unimportant. I tend to fall in that camp.
For point of board history, there's somewhat of a tradition on the Republican side of the fence to make fun of and ridicule Ted Kennedy. They either point out the drowning incident or post a photo of the obese senator in a bathing suit, and the meme has stuck. They do the same to Senator Byrd by posting photos of him in a KKK outfit.
At any rate, I think generally what I wrote. A lot of Democrats, especially older Democrats, respect Ted Kennedy and his opinions, and the endorsement does help out the Obama campaign. I do not think that the endorsement has anything whatsoever to do with race or gender. I do not think that the endorsment is some sort of statement about a woman's ability to run the country. I think that Senator Kennedy took a look at both candidates and actually has a preferance, based on positions, qualifications and personality. And he stated that preference.
Today, I read this piece of crap which pisses me off no end. Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, and the Family and Medical Leave Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.
And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). “They” are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). "They" are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future.
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.(sic)
This is from the New York chapter of the National Organization of Women. (I checked the Texas chapter, and fortunately or unfortunately, they're so disorganized that they haven't updated their website in nearly a year, much less issued any stupid statements.) The big umbrella organization, on the other hand, had this to say about the endorsement. 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.
This, this is the sort of statement that I support, especially in light of the fact that Barack Obama is a feminist. To read the NOW-NY release, you'd think we'd all be stripped of our right to vote and forrcibly subjected to our husbands' will. To read the NOW-NY release, Ted Kennedy has driven the party into the arms of a person who hates women. But, look at Obsidian Wings rundown of the feminist credentials of the two candidates.Clinton and Obama have gotten solid 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood (Obama also gets 100 from the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association for 2005-6, while Clinton gets 93; she was 100 through 2004, however.) Both Clinton and Obama were with NOW 100% of the time in 2006; in 2005, NOW gave Obama a 91 and Clinton a 96. I was somewhat surprised to find that Obama did slightly better than Clinton on the Children's Defense Fund's ratings: Clinton has a perfect score until 2006, when she got a 90; Obama has consistent 100s.
And it's not just ratings. Consider Obama's statement on the 35th anniversary of Roe, which I noticed largely because of comments by Redstocking. After talking about the importance of Roe, and his own record on choice, Obama writes:""When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.
"Moreover, I believe in and have supported common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies. In the Illinois state Senate, when Congress failed to require insurance plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives, I made sure those contraceptives were covered for women in Illinois. In the U.S. Senate, I've worked with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on a bill that would make birth control more affordable for low-income and college women, and introduced the Senate version of Representative Hilda Solis’ bill to reduce unintended pregnancies in communities of color. As President, I will improve access to affordable health care and work to ensure that our teens are getting the information and services they need to stay safe and healthy.
"But we also know that Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman’s right to choose; it’s about equality. It’s about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons. And so to truly honor that decision, we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves, and their children, from violent relationships; so that a mom can stay home with a sick child without getting a pink slip; so that she can go to work knowing that there’s affordable, quality childcare for her children; and so that the American dream is within reach for every family in this country. This anniversary reminds us that it’s not enough to protect the gains of the past - we have to build a future that’s filled with hope and possibility for all Americans.""
It's nutty to suggest that no feminist in good standing can support a candidate with that kind of record.
Frankly, given my own longstaning dedication to a particular feminist cause, I should slightly lean Obama, given the above statements and statistics.
Both of these candidates are feminists. I agree and I understand that Hillary offers a different perspective of feminism than we have ever been exposed to from a national leader before. But to suggest, in hysterical and over the top manner (this press release from NOW NY is even worse than the previous one) that Obama isn't a feminist and a vote for him somehow "betrays" women is downright offensive to feminists everywhere, men and women.
Yesterday, Hank on Lawtalkers asked whether or not Ted Kennedy's endorsement had any relevance. This was my response. (Assume that I had a brain fart on how to spell Senator Obama's first name.)I was thinking a lot about this question at lunch.
I think a lot of Democrats are similar to my parents. They like both Hillary and Barak, but they're not sure which one to back. My dad's a hard core feminist and sort of leans Hillary. My mom's (bipartisan) book club read Barak's first book, and she came away really liking him. I think that they sort of lean Barak, but they also really like Hillary too. It's a difficult choice for them.
My mom was in the first class of White House interns from the Kennedy administration, and the Kennedy name to them means something to my parents and--I suspect--Democrats in my parents' generation. They like Ted Kennedy and don't think he's as irrelevant as most of the people on this board seem to*. His getting into the fray at this juncture rather than standing back until the convention sort of tells them that maybe one candidate is actually better than the other for the party and for the country.
Barak Obama isn't really going to have a problem with younger Democrats. The older ones that look for experience and somewhat of a known commodity might look for cues from people whose opinions they trust on someone like Barak Obama. Someone like Ted Kennedy, who has been around the Democratic block a few times and can spot the real deal, is someone they may trust.
I don't think the Kerry endorsement means all that much, but I think that the Kennedy endorsement (especially on the heels of the South Carolina debacle/victory) could mean that Democrats that didn't really care one way or another** might come out and vote.
*I'm not sure if that's just posturing and rhetoric or that it's honest opinion. Ted Kennedy serves prominently on a lot of health care committees, so he's never been particularly irrelevant to me.
**By that, I mean that they think that either Barak or Hillary would be perfectly ok, not that they don't think that the nomination is unimportant. I tend to fall in that camp.
For point of board history, there's somewhat of a tradition on the Republican side of the fence to make fun of and ridicule Ted Kennedy. They either point out the drowning incident or post a photo of the obese senator in a bathing suit, and the meme has stuck. They do the same to Senator Byrd by posting photos of him in a KKK outfit.
At any rate, I think generally what I wrote. A lot of Democrats, especially older Democrats, respect Ted Kennedy and his opinions, and the endorsement does help out the Obama campaign. I do not think that the endorsement has anything whatsoever to do with race or gender. I do not think that the endorsment is some sort of statement about a woman's ability to run the country. I think that Senator Kennedy took a look at both candidates and actually has a preferance, based on positions, qualifications and personality. And he stated that preference.
Today, I read this piece of crap which pisses me off no end. Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, and the Family and Medical Leave Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.
And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). “They” are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). "They" are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future.
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.(sic)
This is from the New York chapter of the National Organization of Women. (I checked the Texas chapter, and fortunately or unfortunately, they're so disorganized that they haven't updated their website in nearly a year, much less issued any stupid statements.) The big umbrella organization, on the other hand, had this to say about the endorsement. 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.
This, this is the sort of statement that I support, especially in light of the fact that Barack Obama is a feminist. To read the NOW-NY release, you'd think we'd all be stripped of our right to vote and forrcibly subjected to our husbands' will. To read the NOW-NY release, Ted Kennedy has driven the party into the arms of a person who hates women. But, look at Obsidian Wings rundown of the feminist credentials of the two candidates.Clinton and Obama have gotten solid 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood (Obama also gets 100 from the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association for 2005-6, while Clinton gets 93; she was 100 through 2004, however.) Both Clinton and Obama were with NOW 100% of the time in 2006; in 2005, NOW gave Obama a 91 and Clinton a 96. I was somewhat surprised to find that Obama did slightly better than Clinton on the Children's Defense Fund's ratings: Clinton has a perfect score until 2006, when she got a 90; Obama has consistent 100s.
And it's not just ratings. Consider Obama's statement on the 35th anniversary of Roe, which I noticed largely because of comments by Redstocking. After talking about the importance of Roe, and his own record on choice, Obama writes:""When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.
"Moreover, I believe in and have supported common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies. In the Illinois state Senate, when Congress failed to require insurance plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives, I made sure those contraceptives were covered for women in Illinois. In the U.S. Senate, I've worked with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on a bill that would make birth control more affordable for low-income and college women, and introduced the Senate version of Representative Hilda Solis’ bill to reduce unintended pregnancies in communities of color. As President, I will improve access to affordable health care and work to ensure that our teens are getting the information and services they need to stay safe and healthy.
"But we also know that Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman’s right to choose; it’s about equality. It’s about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons. And so to truly honor that decision, we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves, and their children, from violent relationships; so that a mom can stay home with a sick child without getting a pink slip; so that she can go to work knowing that there’s affordable, quality childcare for her children; and so that the American dream is within reach for every family in this country. This anniversary reminds us that it’s not enough to protect the gains of the past - we have to build a future that’s filled with hope and possibility for all Americans.""
It's nutty to suggest that no feminist in good standing can support a candidate with that kind of record.
Frankly, given my own longstaning dedication to a particular feminist cause, I should slightly lean Obama, given the above statements and statistics.
Both of these candidates are feminists. I agree and I understand that Hillary offers a different perspective of feminism than we have ever been exposed to from a national leader before. But to suggest, in hysterical and over the top manner (this press release from NOW NY is even worse than the previous one) that Obama isn't a feminist and a vote for him somehow "betrays" women is downright offensive to feminists everywhere, men and women.