If you endorse Obama, you are a sexist

This is beautiful. The Head of the NY chapter of NOW is attacking Teddy Kennedy for endorsing Obama, calling it a Betrayal. Here is the text:

“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.’”

Holy Shit. Thankfully I am not the only one who would like this Lady to chill the fuck out. Emily Bazelon from Slate chimes in:

So, that's it—an endorsement of any candidate but Hillary is a betrayal
of the feminist cause? I suppose the more sophisticated version is that
interest groups expect the politicians they support to support them
blindly in their time of need. This is their time of need, the NY NOW
chapter argues, ergo, Kennedy should be with them. But that assumes
that the feminist time of need equates with electing Hillary. Would
most women, or even most feminists, agree with that? I just can't.

Yay for common sense! 

Comments

  1. Yeah, but Ted Kennedy really is a sexist though. I’m just saying.

    What I want to know is why the “National Organization of Women” gives money to a 103 year old Senator who thinks it’s cool to get drunk and run around with no pants on fondling women who are young enough to be his grand-daughters?

  2. NOW needs to quit whining, get off their comfy NY butts and take their rant, money and energy where women REALLY need help. Especially if they think Kennedy’s endorsement is so important…yabayay, what are they going to say about us fellow US women who would rather not vote than vote for Hillary?

  3. Geez! Is voting for Hillary really THAT bad – if in fact she turns out to be the Democratic nominee? Come on people. This is what I don’t understand – do Hillary haters just really really really hate her or do they think she would be a BAD president if elected? When you look at the policies that Obama and Hillary are campaigning for, there’s not a whole lot that’s different. I’m not saying you have to like it, but why wouldn’t you just hold your nose and vote for her, if only to prevent another 4 years of a Republican in office?

  4. Oh honestly. Equality means just that. It goes both ways.
    American women shouldn’t elect a woman just becuase she is a woman! How about her policies?
    I certainly hope people will elect for other reasons.

    However I think alot of men may NOT vote for her for the same reason! Thats rather less publicised. As i said- it goes both ways.

  5. And if we don’t vote for Obama we’d be racist. Obama and Clinton should end up on the ticket. They’d have to win or we’d be a country of sexist racists.

  6. John Cunningham says:

    Both obama and shrillery are thought of as socialists or as I think of democrats, communists. The “change” they’re talking about is not unlike a shakedown. The “change” will be of individual’s money into their hands. They know better than you how to spend it. They want huge government bureuacracies established to show us how to spend our money. They scream about the sub-prime mortgages. There’s about 6% of mortgage holders having problems. That means 94% are having little or no problem. I could go on and on.

    NOW, they only go after white American males, they’re easy targets. Islamofacism and the treatment of women, not a word of protest. They are totally self-absorbed suburban psychos on cell phones in their SUVs on the way to the mall. Psycho bitches.

  7. Apperently, american democrates can choose to be either sexit or racist.

    or both.

  8. MadAtGasCars says:

    MBK – I wouldn’t call myself a “Hillary-Hater.” I recognize the similarities between her policies & Obama’s. I also think she’s a capable person who would – all other things being equal – do an excellent job as president (maybe even better Obama). But all other things are not equal. “Holding my nose” wouldn’t cut it. Not when we’re talking about the dynastic implications of over 30 years of two families in the White House. Not when we’re talking about the undefined role a former president would play in her administration. Not when we’re talking about polarization & partisanship as deep (or deeper) as it is right now under King George II. I resent the logic of the Clinton campaign & its war of attrition. Win by inches & the sheep of the party will fall in line and vote “Not Republican.” There are larger issues at stake in this election than usual & Hillary is not just another candidate. Intelligent, talented, shrewd: yes. But also divisive, cynical, and poorly timed. Should she be punished for the circumstances in which she finds herself? Of course not. But I don’t see why we should punish ourselves…

  9. MadAtGasCars – Thanks for your reply. I’m really not trying to be snarky or anything, I’m just trying to understand because I’ve heard a lot of Democrats say that they’d vote Republican or not at all rather than vote for Hillary if she was the Democratic nominee. Of course there are larger issues at stake in this election, and I really think that only a Democratic president (Obama or Clinton) would appoint a competent Attorney General to clean up the mess in the Justice Department, choose Supreme Court nominees that might tip the balance of the court back to the middle, hopefully figure out an end to the war in Iraq without treating the word “timetables” as the newest four letter word, etc. etc.

    I’m not saying that your concerns are wrong or off base. It’s just that we don’t always get the candidates we want – that’s how the system works. I liked Bradley in 2000, but that didn’t mean that I voted for Bush (or Nader) when Gore was the nominee. I liked Dean in 2004, but that didn’t mean that I voted for Bush when Kerry was the nominee. So how is this year different? I’m just worried that another Republican in the White House (even if it happens to be McCain) will mean more of the same…. So indeed we punish ourselves either way, don’t you think?