« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
NOW to Clinton: KEEP GOING!
The media paid no attention when NOW announced support for Hillary Clinton. The women's organization felt Obama has a weak record on women's issues. They were surprised when yesterday, the media gave tremendous attention when a much smaller organization, NAREL, endorsed Obama. The NY chapter of NOW wanted not only to reassure women that they stand firmly behind Clinton, but to urge her to continue. Here is their emal:
NOW New York State Urges Hillary Clinton to Stand Strong and Stay in Race
ALBANY, NY (05/14/2008; 2110)(readMedia)-- The media attention that Hillary Clinton has garnered for her win in West Virginia has been too much for the boys in DC to tolerate. So the Beltway boys are circling the wagons and trying to force Hillary Clinton out of the race. And the “no girls allowed" sign has been given a fresh coat of paint.
Today, NOW New York State stands firm in our support of Hillary Clinton. We strongly urge her to stay in the race until every vote is counted. Senator Clinton has shown brilliantly as a true American who stands strong and who insists that every vote be counted, and who demands that a nominee be chosen before anyone drops out. She is a democratic American who believes in the rights of all citizens to cast their votes. And Hillary Clinton is every bit as fit to hold office as is the cast of characters calling themselves patriotic, but clamoring that this perfectly viable and capable woman drop out before the votes are counted.
With the recent endorsement of Obama by John Edwards et.al, the race has become a test of wills among Democrats who should in fact be interested allies. Women will not stand idly by to watch their candidate be sidelined by the DC boys and their supporters who cannot deal with a woman who is the most qualified candidate to be the next President of the United States. And it's no accident that these recent endorsements come on the heels of Senator Clinton’s exceptional win in West Virginia. She is expected to win the other upcoming primaries, and the drip of Obama endorsements is designed to take the attention away from Senator Clinton. And NARAL should be ashamed of itself for following this herd.
Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to beat John McCain in November. She has all of the states that any Democratic candidate needs to secure the White House. She has won the swing states. She has fifty-five percent of the women’s vote; and she enjoys the majority of the working class citizens' vote, as proven over and over again. What more does the Democratic party want from a candidate?
Hey boys! Girls ARE allowed these days. And we of NOW New York State strongly support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States of America.
Comments (17)
Yikes! Just as with Kennedy's endorsement, they seem to be saying that if you don't support Clinton, that you're hanging a “no girls allowed" sign.
It's as if they're not even listening to the reasons Edwards and NARAL gave, but are simply jumping to assume the worst.
I hope for NY NOW's sake that this doesn't get too much attention as it doesn't exactly put them in a flattering light. (It should be noted that NOW and NY NOW don't always agree on these things.)
May 15, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was my reaction, as well. There are a ton of reasons to support Clinton, but reducing everything down to a mere fluke of birth is dumb. I'm a woman and I cringe at language like that.
NY NOW should watch the language it uses in such releases. I honestly feel this sort of extragender hostility is more damaging to women than whatever they're campaigning against.
Feminism, to me, is just a small part of social justice. If you make men the enemy, you're missing the point.
May 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
He had a 100 percent voting record on choice all the time he was in office and Chicago Now and Illinois NOW endorsed Barack in all his state senate races, as did Planned Parenthood and NARAL. NOW relied on Pam Sutherland, Illinois Planned Parenthood’s lobbyist, to do all our work in the state legislature. She did a great job and it was because of her strategy we defeated many measure designed to restrict a woman’s right to choose. It was with heavy heart that I first went on the record to defend Obama’s record on choice, being a firm Hillary supporter. When the line of attack did not stop but was escalated in a direct mailer in New Hampshire to pro-choice voters from Hillary’s campaign I stopped being sad and got mad. This is bad for the pro-choice movement. It hurts our reputation and credibility. I stand for choice and truth.
In addition, does it not mean something that National NARAL president Nancy Keenan released a statement saying both Hillary and Barack are both 100 percent pro-choice?
Illinois and New York NOW have done serious damage to their organization’s reputation among serious pro-choice men and women. It is really distressing as a feminist to watch.
Glad to set the record straight.
Lorna Brett Howard
May 15, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did exactly what Planned Parenthood asked him to do. If NOW's strategy was to insist on actual "no" votes, the group is even more woefully incapable of effective lobbying than I gave it credit for. Legislative voting doesn't happen in a vacuum. There's absolutely no point in forcing your supporters from challenging districts to vote "no" on a controversial bill when a "present" vote will accomplish the same thing *and* prevent them from being targeted by direct mail.
Obama showed that he understands the political process when he helped Planned Parenthood implement the "present" strategy. His actions were far wiser and more mature than the strategies of NOW, which appear to have been to insist on stupid and useless votes simply to ... what? Cost their supporters seats in the next election? Because that's the only effect their strategy - as opposed to Planned Parenthood's strategy - would have had.
Mr. Dobbs, you need to award Pinocchios to NOW, and a gold star for accuracy to Obama. His "present" votes were exactly what he said they were, and nothing at all like what NOW said they were. By representing that the "present" votes make Obama soft on abortion, NOW is simply and straightforwardly lying to its members. That's ludicrous and insulting.
May 15, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to replace "NOW" with "NY NOW" in what you just wrote. I don't believe they're in agreement on this.
May 15, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it didn't get as much media attention because it was only the NY chapter of NOW versus the national NARAL.
Considering this is her home state, where's the newsworthiness?
Besides, there are actual real reasons to back Obama, as opposed to Clinton.
Here is a prominent NOW member:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
May 15, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Link to Wapo factchecker:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html
May 15, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting item from the ABC poll the other day:
Trend where available:
a. a woman president of the United States
-- Comfortable --- -- Uncomfortable-- No
NET Ent. Smwt. NET Smwt. Ent. opinion
5/11/08 84 62 22 16 9 7 *
7/21/07 79 54 25 20 9 10 1
b. an African-American president of the United States
-- Comfortable --- -- Uncomfortable-- No
NET Ent. Smwt. NET Smwt. Ent. opinion
5/11/08 88 66 22 12 6 6 1
7/21/07 86 56 30 12 7 5 1
Basically starting from 20% being uncomfortable and only 54% entirely comfortable with a female candidate vs. 12% uncomfortable with a black candidate. It's now a bit better at 16% uncomfortable and more "entirely comfortable". The bad news for McCain is that 40% are uncomfortable with a 72-year-old candidate. Still pretty amazing though, only 54% "entirely comfortable" with a female President last summer. One more indication that sexism is a bigger problem than admitted.
May 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt. And, not to beat a dead horse, but the numbers are even worse for us atheists.
May 15, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd think an atheist would have no problem beating a dead horse.
It's dead,right? It's not like it's going to come back to haunt you. ;)
May 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's sad to see NOW reduced to this sort of petty, schoolyard posturing. It continues to be completely impossible for them to comprehend the idea that voters might oppose Senator Clinton for a reason other than misogyny.
May 15, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Present" isn't much of a vote. Sorry.
May 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kinda makes you wonder why Planned Parenthood asked him to vote "present" then, doesn't it.
May 15, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell the marketing firm that hires you Trolls
to pimp for Obama, that Obama is not getting his
money's worth.
May 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question for Ben. Do you have a job?
It doesn't seem normal for an adult to hang around on a blog 24/7.
If you don't have to work, do you enjoy sports?
Jogging? Anything?
May 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume you do your trolling for free? And you're right, the guy who posts thought-out (if armchair) analysis is a much bigger loser than the guy who registers just to post three no-content, weak rejoinders.
May 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Ben and Demosaur.
May 15, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment