NOW-NY slams Kennedy

[Algorem]

Source: Albany Times Union


"The ultimate betrayal" says women's group

By JAY JOCHNOWITZ, State editor


The National Organization for Women's New York chapter today issued a scathing response to Sen. Ted Kennedys endorsement of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, calling it a "betrayal" of women.


Marcia Pappas, NOW-NY's president, wrote in a news release that on a host of issues and positions, "Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him," but "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."

Pappas blasted several other people and Democratic groups, including national Democratic Chairman Howard Dean, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, and "Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they'll do feminist and womens rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America's future or whatever."

In an interview, Pappas said she's gotten mixed reactions to the statement, with some telling her it was "cathartic" to others saying, "How dare you, I'm quitting NOW."...



Read more: http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=659011&category=&BCCode=&newsdate=1/28/2008

---

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=6285

The National Organization for Women’s New York chapter issued a scathing reaction to Sen. Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Actually, the word “scathing” feels inadequate here.


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

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

“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.’”

[saltpoint]

1. If the assumption is that Kennedy endorsed Obama on grounds of sex and gender

then the assumption is dead wrong, IMO.

An endorsement from Kennedy of Obama has to do with the direction he holds high for the party and its ability and will to shape the future of the nation.

It isn't based on who's got what between their legs.

One of the most fiercely tenets of feminism is its insistence that one NOT be judged on one's sex and gender but on one's equal capacity for accomplishment and the attendant respect of the individual without regard to sex, gender, race, creed, etc.

NOW should play by its own rules.

Kennedy picked his candidate based on his vision for the nation's years past the end of his own lifetime and well into the lifetimes of his grandchildren's children and beyond.

This hysterical rant (that's exactly the adjective I want) is untoward and unprofessional by Ms. Pappas and will do nothing to advance the cause of women in the U.S. or worldwide.

[ihavenobias]

10. Excellent! n/t

[BobbyVan]

15. This whole thing looks like a GOP dirty trick

Can someone look into this organization? The only people helped by this are the Repubs

[saltpoint]

16. I doubt if a majority of N.O.W. members endorse Ms. Pappas' views.

I personally thought she was way over the top.

[Stephanie]

30. No, it's real.

I contacted a friend at national NOW and she confirmed. I'm rather shocked myself. My first response was to declare it a hoax.

[mzmolly]

21. Bravo!

:toast: I could not agree more.

[Buzz cook]

29. Kennedy jumped on a band wagon.

I think her reaction is because Clinton has a better record on woman's rights than Obama. I'd hazard a guess that Kennedy is also going back on previous commitment.

One of the basic tenants of feminism is that women are being screwed by the system and one of the best ways to fix that is to place women in positions of power.

[saltpoint]

31. Not sure we have a case against Sen. Kennedy, however. You are

speculating about that commitment. For some weeks the Kennedy endorsement was withheld. I see no evidence that it had been promised to anyone.

Shy of that evidence, Ms. Pappas overreacted and then some.

Not everyone is lockstep in "the system," and many women have more participation in that system now than at any other time in the nation's history. A woman is the Secretary of State. A woman is the Speaker of the House. More women are in the U.S. Senate than ever; some chair committees. Still more are governors. One such addressed the nation on television just a few hours ago.

Ms. Pappas didn't get her way, and while I appreciate her disappointment, it is a political disappointment and not a sexist gesture.

[Midwest Progressive]

57. NOW would counter

that Kennedy should support Hillary because she is a woman and her election would be epic in terms of women's rights.

You suggest he ignore that fact.

[saltpoint]

58. I do no such thing. I assert that he knows that fact just as anyone else

knows it and that it is not the tripswitch to his vision of the nation's future, which he sees in the candidacy of one of Clinton's opponents.

That is not a sexist position by Sen. Kennedy.

[Midwest Progressive]

60. "It isn't based on who's got what between their legs."

But what's between their legs does matter!

We've never had a woman president, and her election would be monumental. Discouting that fact is what has NOW upset, and I see their point.

That said, it would be marvelous to see a person of color elected as well.

[saltpoint]

62. No, it isn't what's between their legs that matters. It's what they bring

in heart and mind and spirit and energy to public policy.

We are enjoined by many -- not just N.O.W. -- to regard and consider candidates as equals despite their race, gender, etc.

I understand the point about historical firsts. But it isn't the hinge in this election for many voters.

Kennedy endorsed the candidate of his choice, who happened to be male. He didn't endorse that candidate because the candidate had a penis.

[Midwest Progressive]

63. Ignoring history and that past discrimination is wrong, IMO

We should give special consideration to women and minorities to allow for past discrimination. The affirmative action sentiment.

[saltpoint]

64. Interesting take, but it would appear to fly in the face of individual

voter choice in a Constitutional republic.

Oprah Winfrey, a woman, endorsed Sen. Obama. Is she a betrayer too? Or does she get a pass because she's a woman? Or does she get a pass because she's an entertainer?

What about the female public figures who have resoundingly endorsed Obama or Edwards. Have they abandoned some high principle N.O.W. feels should trump individual voter preference?

The game is played thus. As one poster downthread indicated, where was N.O.W. when Senator Moseley Braun ran for the same job four years ago? We didn't hear a peep from them then.

[Zhade]

67. Nice job, troll.

NT!

[geomon666]

2. How petty.

Did it ever enter her mind that maybe it's the issues and not the gender? Nah...didn't think so.

[ursi]

3. one more reason I will never pay dues to this organization ...

[caligirl]

4. Lorna Brett Howard, Chicago NOW President explains (Youtube) why she left Clinton cam. Supports BO

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

Why Lorna Switched from Clinton to Obama


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

[WistfulAssassin]

5. Let me guess. The NY Times is racist! n/t

somehow.

[rayofreason]

6. That is quite a rant.

"Ultimate betrayal" is a bit over the top.

[wheresthemind]

7. so Kennedy should have endorsed Hillary b/c she is a woman?

[saltpoint]

8. There have been some seriously high-profile female politicians and public

figures who have endorsed Sen. Obama in recent weeks.

Have they also abandoned women?

Are they also betrayers?

[RaRa]

9. As a woman, I don't feel excited that Hillary would be our first woman Pres.

Let's see...regardless of her accomplishments...she became Senator of New York and consequently a Presidential hopeful BECAUSE SHE WAS MARRIED TO A PRESIDENT. Sorry, but if that's the only way a woman can get elected to the highest office in this country, then I'm not feeling particularly proud of the state of things for women here. Jesus! Can't we (women) get a smart and qualified woman in her own right elected? I'm so sick of the entitlements we throw around. We could go from W - he is where he is only because of his daddy...to Hillary...where she is because of her husband? Yuck!

Go Obama! You've earned everything in your own right.

[GrimReefa]

11. They should post this post a copy of this rant on every telephone pole from San Diego to Weed

Obama would win Cali by 40 points.

[ToughLuck]

12. NOW ..Becomes laughable group exposed to all

How any group that is suppose to be for equality can make the most audacious claims that Kennedy's endorsement is a "betrayal" of women is laughable and deserving of that laughter.

What they are actually saying is, you did not endorse her Ted BECAUSE of her gender,because her policies should have nothing to do with his decision...isn't that what an idiot would do??...a vote based on gender..yea, thats what this asinine group is telling young women to do. Pathetic!

Hillary has taken on the role of a senator, she has had to make choices, so Ted, should ignore her record if he disagrees with it..BECAUSE..she is a woman. Wow, what an enlightened group. If Hillary loses the White House, she can thank these non-progressive morons. How can it be that they do not realize that by bashing Kennedy on these grounds that they themselves are basically endorsing her primarily on gender..and that makes them hypocritical and flat out stupid.

[saltpoint]

13. I just sent an email letter to N.O.W., calling on the organization to publicly

repudiate Ms. Pappas' comments on Sen. Kennedy.

If anyone wishes to join the debate, their homepage is:

http://www.now.org/

Good luck navigating it -- it's a bit of a mess. They could use a good Buddhist webmasterperson.

[saltpoint]

14. If you want to pin-point your comments to the NY chapter only, here it is:

http://www.now.org/chapters/write.html?code=NY0000&display_name=New+York+State+NOW

(It is a webform / doesn't take long to fill out. )

[mzmolly]

25. Wow, just when I clicked on your link to fire off a response...

A new statement at the top of the "Hot Topics" area reads:

NOW's Response to Sen. Kennedy's Endorsement

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

January 28, 2008

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

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

:toast:

[saltpoint]

32. Hot dog! I'll tip a glass to that one.

:toast:

[eridani]

17. Clinton betrayed the women of Iraq and has yet to apologize

They were not under virtual house arrest before our invasion.

[krkaufman]

28. Well, you can add the women of Afghanistan, as well ...

... since Iraq has robbed that country of our focus and resources.

[eridani]

34. Right. They obviously need more air strikes from the US

I wish people would give up on this horseshit notion of military action as social work, only with cluster bombs.

The US elite is interested in dominating Afghanistan, period, not in helping its women. The mark of a dominator is looking for local cat's paws to control the native populations for the benefit of foreign overlords. Naturally, those cat's paws always have their own agendas, so the dominator has to constantly switch sides in the constant grasping for domination and control.

The US elite initiated the fundie Islamic attack on Afghanistan in 1979 by supporting people like Hekmatyar and bin Laden. Later they supported the Taliban. Cat's Paw in Chief Zalmay Khalilzad wrote an editorial in WaPo in 1997 explaining how the Taliban wasn't nearly as bad as those anti-US Shi'ite fundies in Iran. Then the Taliban became enemies after 9/11 because our overlords recognized that going directly after Iraq's oil would be too obvious.

None of these moves had anything to do with improving the lives of average people living in Afghanistan. Why not just leave them the fuck alone?

[krkaufman]

46. I would only question your premise that US is looking to dominate Afghanistan.

Personally, I think the elite don't give a damn about Afghanistan, but keeping the military action going there is a necessity to keep afloat the notion that we're going after bin Laden and al Qaeda -- without actually capturing them or ending the threat, so that their primary goal of dominating the oil states is effected.

[eridani]

59. Afghanistan, like the Balkans is part of the encirclement of the oil-rich areas

However, the bin Laden rationale is probably relevant as well. Interesting what they kept in house and what they outsourced, no? They insisted on imposing Karzai on the loya jirga of 2002 that strongly preferred the ex-king (on the grounds that he had pissed off the fewest number of people). They outsourced the actual pursuit of bin Laden which was the only ethically conceivable justification for being there at all. Focusing solely on that goal would have made a bombing campaign irrelevant.

[krkaufman]

68. And capturing bin Laden would have negated ANY justification ...

... for invading Iraq.

[eridani]

69. Bingo. n/t

[water]

36. The war was/is horrible, but women there (edit:wow) had it horribly under Saddam as well.

Government torture/rape rooms shouldn't be so easily dismissed just because you don't like the war.

edit: stupid typo

[eridani]

39. They are very easily dismissed

They were really horrible, but the statistical chance of any individual Iraqi woman getting into one was pretty miniscule. The chances of being killed or raped for leaving home now approach 100%.

Under Saddam there was no civic life possible, but at least people had ordinary material lives.

[catgirl]

45. She has also betrayed american women

whose jobs she outsourced.

And why should someone be attacked for endorsing someone?
This is America, right?

[eridani]

61. But hey, if you can't afford kids after your job was outsourced--

--you can still get an abortion, right? Not to blow off reproductive rights, but it's sad that this is what some seem to mean by "feminism."

[frog92969]

18. So an endorsement for Obama is an insult to all women?

Please!

And what's the shot at Kucinich?

[JerseygirlCT]

55. Yeah, I don't get this.

It's ridiculous.

[mzmolly]

19. As a woman, I find this response shameful.

As IF a man can not be considered the best candidate because a woman is running for office against said man? Where was NOW-NY when Carol Mosely Braun was running for the Presidency? :eyes:

Might I say it's time for a new phrase > "gender baiting."

[saltpoint]

20. Quite a good point. Actually more than one good point.

"gender baiting."

Zing!

:hi: :thumbsup:

[mzmolly]

22. Thanks OC.

"Gender baiting" ... In light of recent "events" - I am prepared to use the term again durnit! ;)

Hey, we cross "replied" to one another. :hi:

[saltpoint]

23. We did! We cross-posted but not on cross-purposes!

:hi: :thumbsup:

[mzmolly]

24. Heh.

:pals:

[JerseygirlCT]

56. Yes, exactly. It also says to me that supporters of hers like this

can't find a real reason to support her. That's telling, and pretty sad, actually.

[Dogmudgeon]

26. How dare she!

It's taking attention off of Bill Clinton's racist comparison of the South Carolina primary with the SC caucus in 1988!

--p!

[krkaufman]

27. Wow, so NOW-NY says Hillary should be elected because she's a woman.

That's progress. I seriously thought the release was going to detail how HRC was so much better on womens' issues that BO, but the core of her argument is... "Elect Hillary. 'Cause she's a woman."

[Baby Snooks]

33. Anyone but Hillary...

Marcia Pappas needs to accept that some are not biased against women in their opposition to Hillary Clinton but are merely biased against Hillary Clinton. Any woman should do. But for many of us, Hillary simply won't do. Not as the first Madame President. Not as the tenth.

If NOW simply wanted "a" woman as president, a woman who simply "could" become president, then NOW should have pressed Madame Speaker to file articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney and if he were convicted by the Senate, and then pressed whoever succeeded Madame Speaker, who would then be vice-president, to file articles of impeachment against George W Bush and if he were convicted, then we would have had our first Madame President. Nancy Pelosi. But that of course was not acceptable to Hillary Clinton. Just as the endorsment of Barack Obama by the two remaining reminders of Camelot, Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, was not acceptable to Hillary Clinton. So obviously we are to be treated to a public execution of Ted Kennedy and no doubt anyone else who Hillary Clinton believes is "obligated" to endorse her instead of whoever they may feel is the better candidate. Watch her work.

As for Madame Speaker possibly becoming Madame President, do people really believe Hillary Clinton does not have the power to influence Nancy Pelosi? She does. Win or lose the American people demanded impeachment. What frightened Hillary Clinton was the possibility of a win. And she would be denied the place in history she believes belongs to her alone. The first woman president of the United States of America.

Marcia Pappas doth protest too much. Obviously at the behest of Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is not an icon of the woman's movement unless you believe a woman who put up with a philandering husband because of the political advantage it gave her is a role model for liberated women.

Hillary is not a liberated woman. Just a modernized version of the "marry well, divorce better" unliberated woman. Do people really believe that there was really a marriage after Gennifer Flowers? Do people really believe she didn't trade him his political future for her own? Do your thing, I'll do mine. She divorced him. Just not in the usual sense. But what a property settlement.

The only thing about Hillary Clinton that might benefit women, at least in a vicarious sense, is the revenge of turning a former president into a first lady. But then you have the former first lady as president. And then you go back to that 60 Minutes interview. Which defined Hillary then and defines her now. It's all about Hillary.

Marcia Pappas made one major mistake and that was assuming that Hillary Clinton was held in greater esteem than Ted Kennedy.

Ted Kennedy may not have served the agenda of NOW to the satisfaction of NOW but he has served interests of the American people far longer, and far better, than Hillary Clinton ever could.

[rch35]

35. what a bitch

that is all

[regnaD kciN]

37. This almost reads like something out of The Onion...

:crazy:

[EFerrari]

38. Who WROTE this? What a sad day for NOW. n/t

[KillCapitalism]

40. Wow...

this makes NOW look almost batshit crazy.:yoiks:

[sendero]

41. Oh I see..

... HRC is supposed to get a pass because she's a woman.

I guess Obama gets a pass because he's black so it all evens out.

NOW is no longer an organization I respect.

[bklyncowgirl]

42. Wow, is this for real? When did Howard Dean endorse Barack Obama?

NOW has always been a respectable organization but it sounds like this individual failed to take her medication before posting--or took too much. This sounds like someone posting after downing about 10 martinis and getting into a screaming argument with a DFA member in some bar.

Ms Pappas, please. The greatest betrayal, really. Lumping in Ted Kennedy, DFA, PDA, Alternet, Democrats.com, wow. Do you really see women as some sort of monolithic group who agree on everything--or that progressives should automatically support a woman candidate just because she's a woman.

Oh, and when did Howard Dean endorse Barack Obama? Did I miss something?

[Le Taz Hot]

43. This is such drek

NOW marginalized themselves in the late 70's by taking the stance that all men, just in general, are the enemy which failed to recognize that it was the SYSTEM that was the enemy. It's why I withdrew from the national organization in '79. Kennedy has supported a women's right to choose, supported the E.R.A. (anyone remember that?) and has championed womens causes his entire career. He endorses the "outie" candidate and they're throwing him under the bus? Fuck 'em!

[robcon]

44. Over-the-top hardly even approaches a description of the hysteria of their response.

I'm for Hillary, but the sense of entitlement shown by NOW is appalling.

[xxqqqzme]

47. sorry pappas but DFA only supports

PROGRESSIVE candidates and DFA has NOT endorsed any candidate yet.

It is equally short sighted to support a candidate because of gender - one of the reasons I no longer renew my NOW membership. In the '06 election cycle NOW endorsed a 'soft on choice woman (the name escapes me right now) over a solid pro choice man. They lost me on that one.

[NorthernSpy]

48. Quick -- somebody call the WAAAAAAAHmbulance!

:eyes:


Why am I not a feminist? Well, for one thing, feminism belongs to people like her.


No thanks.

[SOS]

49. Pappas called Kerry's Obama endorsement a "metaphorical gang rape"

Why would anyone take this absurd, deranged drivel seriously?

[Hugabear]

52. Are they trying to set back the feminist movement?

Seriously, they want people to vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman? Not because of her ideas, not because they think she has the best chance in November, but simply because she doesn't have a penis?

[focusfan]

50. I wish he would have endorsed John Edwards

he is better than Hillary or Obama

[brentspeak]

51. This Pappas sounds like a total idiot.

For some reason, she thinks Kennedy is obligated to endorse Hillary Clinton simply because of Clinton's gender.

[MBS]

53. Disappointing knee-jerk, one-dimensional reaction by NOW

I am really, really tired of single-issue politics.

[JerseygirlCT]

54. This line of thinking just ticks me the heck off.

Just because someone endorses Obama, doesn't mean they hate H. Clinton.

And just because someone endorses Obama, doesn't mean they hate women.

It means the endorser thinks Obama is a better choice, period.

Hillary Clinton does not represent all women. She is not some sort of archtype, some symbol that stands in for all women. Supporting her doesn't make you supportive of women, and not supporting her doesn't mean you're not.

Boy! Can't we (very general we) focus on the issues? The real ones, not gender or race.

[saltpoint]

65. If anyone wishes to contact the NY N.O.W. office,

their email address is:

[e-mail]

[Zhade]

66. Wait - so not endorsing Clinton is automatic sexism?

That's fucking ridiculous.

[OKthatsIT]

70. NOW has become a 'non-existent' joke

Please...NOW does NOTHING for the women who need the most.

So what do you expect from a Rockefeller funded NGO. The Rockefeller Banks made a killing when women joined the labor movement...its called income tax.