NOW is the Time to Press Obama on Feminist Issues

All over the country, pundits, politicians, and probably even Barack Obama himself are asking the same question:

What do Hillary Clinton supporters want?

Now is the time to contact the Obama campaign or surrogates directly and give them the answer to that question.

Of course the Clinton supporters will have to decide how to answer that question, and for many the only answer will have to do with giving Clinton the veep spot or another high level post. but i would respectfully suggest that it is time to move beyond support for a single candidate and ask Obama to address ALL feminist issues.

And there will NEVER be a better time to do it than right now.

The entire political world is watching, and the Obama campaign will obviously be in furious fence-mending mode. everyone who believes in feminist issues, which are to me the #1 priority in any election, should take the time to write, e-mail or call the Obama campaign, any local or state politicians from your area that are supporting Obama, and the DNC and all agents of the Democratic party and ask, or maybe even better, DEMAND, that feminist issues be given a major priority in the convention, in the campaign, and in an Obama presidency.

It seems some feminists have already made Obama begin to address women's issues more directly. a major failing of his campaign website was that it did not contain a page on "women's issues." apparently, many women wrote to the campaign about this glaring omission, including one MyDD regular (to whom i apologize for not remembering their name) who wrote to the campaign regularly, and then reported here that a new section titled "women's issues" was added to campaign site. it is only a very small step, but it is an important one, and i thank all the people who helped get this needed first step.

Feminist and women's issues are American issues. but America has let American women down, especially in the last 8 years. whether focused on reproductive freedom, equal pay for equal work, stopping violence against women, or just addressing the general issue of sexism that we have seen at its worst during this campaign (even from supposedly progressive men i might add), this is vital work that we need to make up for alot of lost time on.

So whatever feminist issues are the most important to you, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE contact the Obama campaign and all Democratic campaign or local and regional officals you can think of and ask or DEMAND that they bring a laser-beam focus on those issues.

Barack Obama can NOT win the presidency without female support. thus, in my opinion, he OWES the women of the nation a progressive feminist campaign and a presidency that focuses sincerely on issues that affect women. I do believe, but you don't have to, that Obama does already care about these issues. but it is time to hold his feet to the fire.

Tags: Barack Obama, Equal Pay, feminism, reproductive freedom, sexism, Violence Against Women, women's issues (all tags)



only one

Hillary = VP or nothing.

by nikkid 2008-06-01 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: only one
I wouldn't hold your breath.
And, really, what if she doesn't want VP?
What if Hillary herself would prefer another position in an Obama administration?
by Kysen 2008-06-01 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: only one

I don't accept it.

She must not - on behalf of all women and her supporters and her campaign - she must not turn down the VP position.....

It is her destiny as far as she's come, she does not have another option - other than fighting it to the floor.

Because with Hillary - it will never be about the money, or even about her "reputation" in the senate..

It is about making history - she knows this.

Therefore - she must be the VP.

by nikkid 2008-06-01 12:58PM | 0 recs
Don't you think you're being unreasonable?

It's one thing to want her on the ticket. It's another things to say it's the ONLY option, that she 'must not' turn it down or that it's her 'destiny.'

The Presidency is a privilege. It is not a birthright.  

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-01 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't you think you're being unreasonable?

I don't think anyone said it was a birthright.  I feel it is an important task that a core cadre of highly qualified, skilled individuals merit receiving. As we probably would all agree on this blog, just because someone receives the most votes to be nominee does NOT mean they are the best hope to win the G/E OR the best choice for president.  I'm sure there are many examples that we can think of to substantiate that statement.  When we as the voters allow ourselves to be duped into picking the less able candidate, in the end, we have hurt OURSELVES the most, not the alternative candidate who may have been a better option.  Generally, the people who run for higher office will be better off then the rest of us, regardless of if they have achieved their goals in public service.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-01 01:20PM | 0 recs
you were duped?
I was not duped. I voted for the nominee. did you vote for kucinich or something? I mean honestly, neither obama nor clinton are the less able candidate. both are great. we are in fantastic shape for fall. not duped...super duper.
by math 2008-06-01 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't you think you're being unreasonable?

I understand, but there are some important points to make.

The "Hillary is stronger" suggestion is a myth perpetuated by her campaign and absorbed mostly by Clinton supporters. I'm sure you disagree and we can go post after post disagreeing on this matter, so let's digress.

Regardless of whether or not you feel Hillary is stongER than Obama, he is no way, shape or form a weak candidate against McCain.

You think you've developed frustration running against him on Hillary's side? Holy shit. Wait until you're on his side, watching him slice and dice John McCain. Trust me, it's entertaining.

Those of us who feel passionately about our candidates are tainted with bias. I include myself in that. As much as I always attempt to be objective I have to accept that I'm not infallible to human nature.

That being said, when all this mess is over and you're in Obama's corner.. I think you're going to notice sides of him you missed. You're going to get a real grasp of how truly unique and different he really is.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-01 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't you think you're being unreasonable?
  1. I disagree that both candidates are STRONG; however one candidate is definitively strongER then the other for the G/E. The strongER candidate for the G/E doesn't always wind up being the nominee; to assume that is always the case overlooks alot of facts. There  is a definite overly optimistic attitude that I see prevalent amongst some Obama supporters that chooses to A. say states that are not realistically currently in play are somehow going to get him the presidency B. his lack of political experience somehow means he is a stronger candidate against the GOP & C. his lack of political experience somehow makes him more desirable when it comes to predicting how he will REALLY govern. I am not a pessimist by any strange of the imagination, but in the reality based world these suppositions are stretches at best & with our country in such precarious times it makes no common sense to me (in fact it horrifies me) to be taken on this leap.
  2. I never said anyone was duped by voting for any particular candidate, so the Kucinich comment was out of left field, at least to me. What I said was that historically, I am sure just about everyone on this blog would agree that, the majority of American voters have been duped into casting a vote for candidates that were not in their best interest at some point. Uhh Bush, Reagen to name just 2 anyone?  Additionally, you're going to tell me that all the nominees selected by each party to run for President have ALWAYS been the strongest possible candidate to run in the G/E? That was my statement. It is I guess somewhat of a response to the argument that by virtue of being possibly selected as the party's nominee for President,  Obama is ALSO automatically the strongest candidate to win the G/E, when in fact one does NOT necessarily mean the other.
by jrsygrl 2008-06-01 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't you think you're being unreasonable?

How assumed we always elect the stronger nominee? In my opinion (obviously) not yours, Obama IS the stronger candidate.

Snapshot polls don't mean a thing, but since you're going by them they show Obama beating McCain, both, electorally and nationally. Comparisons of Democratic primaries to hypothetical GEs are completely meaningless. Obama would be doing even better in the polls if he didn't have McCain AND Hillary, Bill, and all of the GOP ganging up on him.

Nobody said his lack of (Washington) experience means he will be better. For starters there is a long list of shitty Presidents with long resume's, and visa versa. JFK and Lincoln come to mind on the latter.

I believe his character, intellect, (as well as) his combined experience at the federal, state and local level. All of that is extensive.

As I said before, I have no doubt that in 4 years I'm going to be saying I told you so.  

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-01 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't you think you're being unreasonable?

No I don't think I am being unreasonable in the least. Like I said what is unreasonable is how Clinton's experience has been diminished & the manner which she has been treated overall. However, nothing would make me happier then to be completely wrong regarding Obama's abilities to win the G/E & act in office. However, I don't believe I am and btw I have actually tried to like Obama & watched the debates prior to the NJ primary & tried to convince myself of his validity(I used to hang out on daily kos for God's sake!). But the more I learned the less I liked & I don't think that sentiment is going to be all uncommon come November, especially amongst voters who don't see the wisdom of blocking the GOP from office, if nothing else transcends their vote.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: only one

I wouldn't hold my breath thinking she would want some other position in the administration. She's already a NY Senator. No reason for her to leave the Senate unless it's to be President, or President of the Senate.

by LakersFan 2008-06-01 12:58PM | 0 recs
"a warm bucket of spit"

i think she'd be much better as Secretary of health and Human Services or something like that.

the veep is still, to me, a "warm bucket of spit." it would give her tha chance to be ona historic ticket, but real change is made in the Cabinet or in the senate.

but i asked for YOUR opinion, so thanks for giving it.  :)

by catchaz 2008-06-01 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama on Feminist Iss

Frankly, I already think Obama is strong on feminist issues. However, I think it's always a good idea to push on these.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-01 12:58PM | 0 recs
His positions are already clear

And posted on his web site for all to see.  If you find things he isn't addressing, I agree with you 100%.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-01 01:00PM | 0 recs
I'm going to start writing the campaigns

Demanding a "Men's Issues" section.  The price of beer, for example, is outrageous.

by libertyleft 2008-06-01 01:02PM | 0 recs
Men's issues

FREE BEER to all!  Block the sale of Anheiser-Busch!

by Coach Jay 2008-06-01 01:07PM | 0 recs
I'm sorry but


Go ahead, troll rate me. You are being an ass.

by twinmom 2008-06-01 01:15PM | 0 recs
Calm down

I'm joking about beer but there are serious male unique issues out there just like there are issues that are unique to women.

For example, men are falling behind in education, college enrollment, etc at the same time college and general education are more necessary than ever.

They commit crimes much more frequently than women, and I don't think just assuming that men are naturally more criminal and it will always have to be that way is the way to go.

'Women's rights are human rights' means to me that while we fight for womens rights we must also be prepared to fight for the rights of everyone, everywhere.

by libertyleft 2008-06-01 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Calm down

I guess these are "men's issues," but if you wanted to make a strong point, there are better examples.  How about father's rights to custody?  How about men's lack of influence in birth control issues (I'm talking abortion and adoption)?  How about paternity leave?

None of these issues are important to me, but I hear so-called "men's crusaders" repeating them sometimes, so they must be important to some people.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-01 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Calm down

My mother is a divorce lawyer, she represents a lot of men.  If they want custody, and they aren't unqualified in some way (drugs, crime, abuse, etc) they can get it.

The stats that show women get more custody are because more men simply don't want it, and don't ask for it.  Yeah, a lack of fatherhood is definitely a men's issue. It just isn't a bias against men issue like it is often portrayed.

The birth control issues are too complex to even comprehend and I just don't go there.  Men don't get to make that call cause of nature, when the law and government get involved it should only be to make sure the women doesn't get her rights taken away.

Maybe with super science down the road we can grow babies all the way in test tubes and we will give men some rights there.

Paternity leave is certainly a valid issue, and should be granted on the same terms as maternity leave, aside from, again, the bodily concerns.  A man doesn't need as much leave during pregnancy, but should get just as much after.  

by libertyleft 2008-06-01 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Calm down

I didn't mean to make it seem that I am trumpeting any of these issues.  Other than paternity leave, I don't really think any of them even ARE issues.  I just wanted to put out there some of the more radical arguments I hear from the "men's crusaders" groups.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-01 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm going to start writing the campaigns

Is that akin to people who write articles about the suppression of the white man?? @@

by jrsygrl 2008-06-01 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama on Feminist

Nice diary. We've had our disgreements in the past and I really appreciate this side of you. Unity becomes you.

by LakersFan 2008-06-01 01:03PM | 0 recs
thank you

i apologize, i realize that i am truly an asshole when i disagree with people on something i feel strongly about. a bad character trait.

(and enjoy the Finals!)

by catchaz 2008-06-01 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: thank you

Go Celts!

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-01 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: thank you

Oh, how I want to hide this comment! I find it highly partisan and offensive.

by LakersFan 2008-06-01 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: thank you

Haha, I can attack you if you need the excuse!  Or, in the spirit of this nomination race, I can drudge up some of Kobe's past failings?

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-01 06:25PM | 0 recs
Respectfully, I think this is as silly

as Obama supporters contacting Hillary Clinton and demanding answers on her "black" issues. There is absolutely nothing to suggest Clinton is weak on minority rights issues, and likewise for Obama on feminist issues.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-01 01:08PM | 0 recs
Respectfully, we have DUTY to press on issues

as i said in the diary, i personally think Obama cares about women's issues.

but, in politics, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. if you stay silent on the issues of importance to you, whether women's issues, minority issues, issues of war & peace, the economy, whatever, you do a disservice to those issues.

SPEAK OUT, make your voice heard.

USArmyParatrooper, i have heard your voice here, it is a good one with good ideas. please let not just Obama but all our elected officials hear your important views on the issues that matter to you.

by catchaz 2008-06-01 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Respectfully, we have DUTY to press on issues

OK, I understand. The squeaky wheel analogy surely makes sense.

It's tough because the President is only one person with only two arms and legs. And there are SO many pressing issues right now, how do we prioritize them?

Even though it looks like Hillary is not going to win, she did make one big change in the minds of people.


I'm an Obama supporter. I've been miffed with the Clintons over the past several months. But, notice above where I said, "the President is only one person." In the past I would have said, "only one man"

It has always been presumed to be a "male job".

PS: I appreciate your compliment.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-01 01:30PM | 0 recs
In all seriousness

I agree totally.  Women's issues are American issues.

by Coach Jay 2008-06-01 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

I think that Barack has already demonstrated a willingness to say whatever is needed in order to appease concerned constituencies.  Just look at his ever-evolving position on his own church.

We've gone from:

- he's just a crazy uncle, guys




- Well maybe I can disown him, and in fact I will, but actually the church is amazingly good, and shame on all of you for trying to make it look bad


- Yeah you were all right, I'm leaving

Or, if that's too contentious, you can consider a more practical example, like science funding.  Speaking to one group, he says he will double funding for the sciences.  Speaking to another, he says he will cut NASA's budget deeply in order to spend more on education.

Hand gun bans, drivers licenses for illegals, wars in foreign lands, abortions, the list goes on.  Which is the real Barack?  Perhaps we'll find out in November.

Just remember Barack Obama's own advice to his supporters, as articulated in his book.  He is a blank screen that allows others to project their wishes on to him.  And in the end, he is "bound to disappoint some, if not all of them."

by bobbank 2008-06-01 01:11PM | 0 recs
bobbank demands consistency

and he practices it as well, he's nearly always nasty!

by catchaz 2008-06-01 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: bobbank demands consistency

Do I know you?  Ever read my diaries?

by bobbank 2008-06-01 07:06PM | 0 recs
I'm John McCain

And I approved this nonsequitor

by 79blondini 2008-06-01 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm John McCain

(A) Obama needs us so now is the time to press him to say he'll support our concerns.

(B) Obama gives verbal support to a wide variety of (often mutually exclusive) things.  But his verbal support now does not necessarily indicate support in action later.  Here is an example of how meaningless his words can be.

(A) and (B) are not non-sequitors.  Your use of the term is incorrect.

by bobbank 2008-06-01 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

Your characterization of his position on Wright and  Trinity Church is gross mischaracterization across the board.

Obama said he would delay funding the Moon to Mars project for five years to help fund education. How is this mutually exclusive to him investing in science in the general sense. Unless you think science as a whole can be summed up in one Mars project.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-01 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

If you are trying to run an operation (one which has had its funding stripped in recent years below their historic levels), and someone tells you that you can't have more money, but you might get more later (if he gets elected for a second term), how much is that worth to you, from a practical standpoint?

Not much.

I do think it is misleading to say that you will double funding when what you really mean is that you will raise funding in some areas and cut funding in others.

by bobbank 2008-06-01 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

Maybe it's not so much political pandering as it is a genuine evolution of his thinking?  I mean, he is allowed to gradually change his mind on things, right?  

Hell, if Bush did this, we'd be out of Iraq by now and Gitmo would be closed.  But Bush is a stubborn ass who cares more about continuing to do the wrong thing than admitting he made a mistake.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-01 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

As far as Bush, I think the opposite could be argued to some extent - that he entered the White House believing his doctrine of "compassionate conservatism" but that his thinking evolved over time, particularly in response to 09-11, and that he was deeply changed (for the worse) because of it.  Personally I think this is somewhat true (this is not to make any excuse for him).

As for Obama, I don't see how you show some gradual evolution of thought when you associate yourself with an organization and declare a man your mentor for two decades, only to feign departure while chiding those who criticize your "former" associations.

What I see instead is someone who systematically conceded the bare minimum amount of ground on this subject each time he was confronted with it.  Think of an onion with its layers being peeled.

Step 1: Well you guys are just misrepresenting him and he's really a great guy.

Step 2: He is an exceptional man, but like all people, he has good and bad.  I call on you to become bigger than this, and recognize that I can no more disown him than I could disown the entire African American community!  Let's have a real discussion about race.

Step 3: Never talk about race again.

Step 4: Well obviously I didn't know him very well after all.  And when he accused me of being a pandering politician, that crossed a line, so I'm denouncing him.  But shame on you guys for associating him with that church.  He is not a reflection of the church.

Step 5: Other people associated with the Church continue to say the exact same things.

Step 6: OK, OK, I'm leaving the Church.  But I'm only doing it because you guys insist on making a controversy out of it.


What happened to the principles in Step 2?  How could you not know after two decades what was very clearly the consistent message of this Church day after day?  What exactly is this about?

There's only two possibilities at this point.

Either Barack disagrees with the Church's ideology, in which case he was comfortable associating himself with it purely for political gain.  Or.  This ideology resonates with him or has meaning for him or is persuasive to him.

His reluctance to leave, as evidenced by this step by step approach to handling the issue, suggest the latter.  But neither scenario is one that inspires much trust or comfort from me.

by bobbank 2008-06-01 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

Like most people who are religious, Obama has contradictions, and inconsistencies, and even hypocrisies in his beliefs.  

I think he appreciates what the community of the Church is.  The other parishioners, and Rev. Wright on a personal level, according to his book, seem to be the most important thing to him.  I am sure he agrees with some of the things Wright says from the pulpit (as do I), but probably/hopefully not all.  I also don't think Obama is attends that Church every week because he is often in DC.  

I think when you sit in a Church like that, the context makes you not question seemingly controversial and radical things like "white racism" or anti-Americanism.  That doesn't excuse Wright's statements (well, some of them are true, but some are ridiculously offensive), and it doesn't excuse Obama's acceptance of Wright as his pastor for so many years.  But it may help explain it.

As for Bush, I don't believe he was ever a compassionate conservative (I have yet to see a true compassionate conservative, anyway).  Bush was a frat boy turned trust fund owner of oil companies and baseball teams.  He goes to Church because that's what you do in Texas.  He has not expressed any real knowledge of theology or doctrine that I've ever seen.  And his actions (running Gitmo like a medieval dungeon, rejecting habeas corpus, using 9/11 for political gain, deceiving us into a war, warmongering with Iran, approving torture, and attacking Americans' privacy and rights) and reactions (little real compassion for Katrina victims, statement that Brownie did a good job, no apology for Gitmo or Abu Ghraib conditions, leaking Valerie Plame's name) show that he either does not care about people outside his own circle or he is just terrible at expressing emotion.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-02 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

You're very polite and I'm going to be blunt only because I'm running late for work.

I'm dead-tired of the "context" argument.  And I think it has been thoroughly discredited now.  We were all beaten over the head with the context argument, until Wright decided to speak at the national press club, and make it 100% perfectly clear exactly what he thought.  And apparently every other pastor at this church says the exact same things, not just once, but routinely.

The "context" defense has failed the rational mind.  If your eyes are open the church's ideology is hateful and racist.  Plainly so.  (Or to use their word, unapologetically so.)

Barack didn't just hear these things once or twice.  He and Michelle likely heard them each and every time they went.  Indeed, as the distinguishing factor of this church, it was likely the message that drew them to it.  And this message resonnated so strongly with them that they chose to bring their children to learn it each Sunday also.

In a social context, I am very liberal.  If I have so much trouble with this issue, how do you think moderate dems and the half of the country that votes Republican will do with it?

by bobbank 2008-06-02 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

It is definitely problematic, I agree.  But I find it hard to believe that you have never been in a situation where a mild version of mob rule made you argue something you later couldn't explain.

You've never been at a peace rally and been tempted to burn a flag?  You've never said something at a concert that you didn't believe?  You never sat in a class and said "North Koreans (or Iranians, or whomever) are evil people"?  You never sat in a church pew and listened to a pastor or priest say "Abortion is murder" or "the unbaptized go to purgatory" (I know that recently changed in the Catholic Church)?  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-02 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

You're attempting to create a strawman argument.

Again, to be blunt, I have been beaten over the head by all these arguments already, and they hold absolutely zero merit for me at this point.

This was not something Wright was "tempted" to say, but otherwise didn't believe.  This is not something he said once, caught up in the heat of the moment.  It was his consistent objective to be the cause of that heat.  This was not a case of Barack hearing one out-of-line comment, but looking the other way because it was an anomoly.

It was not an anomoly.

It is the norm.

There is no doubt about that now.  Wright removed any doubt as to his beliefs when he made things crystal clear for you via the Nat'l Press Club.  And as he left the Church to move into his newly constructed mansion, his replacement promptly began saying the same things.  And they even invited a guest (and also friend and political associate of Obama's, as well as a national adviser to his campaign) specifically to underscore the point that Hillary was only in this contest due to racism.

Frankly I think you belittle yourself when you try to make excuses for behavior that is patently wrongheaded and malicious.

by bobbank 2008-06-02 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

How about actually reading my comment in full?  I make no bones about the fact that Wright is full of hate and his speech has been inappropriate.  And nowhere did I try to excuse Obama's implicit acceptance of Wright's views.  But you must never have been to church if you think the parishioners at any church in the world agree with everything the pastor/priest says.  

Whatever, we're done here.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-02 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

What are you attempting to do, if not "excuse Obama's implicit acceptance of Wright's views"?

Again, I'd ask you to drop the strawman.  I'm not saying Obama agreed with 100% of each and every word that Wright ever uttered.  I'm saying that if he agrees with even 1% of it, I have a problem with that.  I don't need to pass your test of having ever been in a pew and heard something I disagreed with.

I can tell you this with absolute certainty:

If I were ever attending a mass in which the pastor said, "The only reason Barack Obama is even being considered for President is because he is a God Damned Nigger", I would not only stand up and leave, but I would NEVER return.

I apologize for using an offensive term, but I do it to underscore how hateful and destructive the ideology of this "church" is.

Now you have been courteous and fair, so I am asking you to reflect on my closing question as honestly as you possibly can:

If you were the hypothetical church I described above, would you, upon hearing those words, think to yourself "well I don't think there's ever been a church where parishioners agreed with everything their pastor says" and then continue to come back, bring your children there, and financially support them, for two decades?

That is why I say you belittle yourself for making excuses for this organization.  Because, simply from the tone of your writing, I can tell that you are a thoughtful person and that your answer to my question is almost certainly "no".

by bobbank 2008-06-02 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

My answer is that I don't believe in god or religion or heaven or hell.  So it's a moot point for me.  I don't believe anything I hear in any church.  So technically, that's a no.

The things that Rev. Wright said never included anything about Hillary (nearly) winning the nomination because she's a woman or white.  His statements were almost all about how America's destructive domestic policies toward certain members of our own country is reflected (though not the cause for) in the disrespect we get from other peoples.

I believe his point was that we get all up in arms if people that are not us and are not like us hate us.  But we have no problem with screwing over our own people and the people of other countries.  That makes us hypocrites.

Rev. Pfleger was a different case and that was the straw that broke the camel's back for Obama.  

I have no problem with someone not voting for Obama because of Wright or Pfleger or Rezko or whatnot.  I personally don't understand the outrage because ALL religious people sound that crazy to me.  I don't see a big difference between Wright's statements and the Catholic apologists who claim that the Pope was uninvolved in the sex abuse scandal despite Pope Benedict's harboring of Cardinal Bernard Law (say that name in Boston and see what reaction you get).  I don't see a big difference between Wright and the pastors who say homosexuals are corrupt and going to hell.  I don't see a big difference when almost every major religion in the world is hypocritical.  I guess that's all I'm saying.  The Wright stuff is not so out of the norm, in my opinion.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-02 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

"The things that Rev. Wright said never included anything about Hillary (nearly) winning the nomination because she's a woman or white."

Speaking about Hillary, Wright condemned any African American who would even contemplate voting for her.  He said that to do so would be the equivalent of letting Bill Clinton anally rape them ("ridin' dirty").  He said that Barack "knows what it's like to live in a world controlled by rich, white people.  Hillary can never know that.  Hillary ain't never been called a nigger!"

Close enough?

He said these things while serving in an official capacity as the Obama campaign's lead national adviser.

Pfleger also serves as a national adviser to Obama's campaign.  These are messages coordinated by the campaign.  It's the old potomac two-step.  You've seen it a dozen times from the Republican party.  The worker bees vocalize the most extreme and controversial positions of the campaign, whilst the candidate "officially" denounces them or distances himself from them.

The only new thing about these tactics is seeing the intensity with which a Democrat is willing to use them to thoroughly dismantle one of the strongest features of the Democrats' resume for the past few decades (Clinton's legacy, particularly with African Americans).  But that was necessary collateral damage from the Obama campaign's point of view, which was losing the African American vote to Clinton before these tactics were set into motion.

by bobbank 2008-06-02 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

First, Pfleger was NOT acting in any way for the Obama campaign.  And he was never any official spiritual advisor to Obama.  He made a donation of a couple hundred dollars and spoke at Obama's church.  If you want to convict Obama on that basis, go ahead and try.

As for Wright, "ridin dirty" is a colloquialism, and nowhere has it ever been used to mean "anal sex."  It means either driving with a concealed weapon or driving with drugs in your car.  Maybe you need to catch up on the newest slang and rap songs (and by new, I mean 3 years old). p?term=ridin+dirty

Rev. Wright said that Hillary couldn't appreciate the pain black people in America feel (I don't personally think Obama can either, but that's a different story).  He didn't say or imply that she was "winning because she's white."  That's a pretty bad non sequitur.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-03 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

And I don't mean to make it seem like I am attacking your point.  I think it's pretty well thought out, and I think it is reasonable enough for that to be a reason not to vote for Obama, if you so choose.  I'm hoping you will vote for Bob Barr or not vote instead of voting for McCain.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-02 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

McCain would like to overturn Roe v Wade, he's passively hostile toward gays, and he wants "conservative" supreme court justices.  For those reasons I cannot vote for him.

by bobbank 2008-06-02 04:37AM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

That's music to my ears.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-02 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

I will, however, be changing my registration to Independent.  Observing this primary "process" is not the only reason for this - more like the straw that broke my back.  The elders of this party border on inept, and I simply won't have my vote be taken for granted any more.

by bobbank 2008-06-02 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama

That's reasonable.  I have no problems with that.  I have a problem with people that are much closer to Obama's policies than McCain's, but say "I'm voting McCain to spite the Obama supporters."  That's bullshit and it's just plain dumb.  But in this country, people are allowed to be dumb.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-03 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama on Feminist Iss
Now is a great time to address feminist issuses.
ANYTIME is a great to address feminist issues.
by Kysen 2008-06-01 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama on Feminist Iss

Heh...the poll results (as of 4:58pm) are:

sexism in general               0 votes - 0 %
violence against women             2 votes - 50 %
equal pay                     2 votes - 50 %
reproductive freedom             3 votes - 75 %
workplace harrassment             0 votes - 0 %
sexism in media             0 votes - 0 %
marriage equality             1 vote - 25 %
equal rights for LGBT community 1 vote - 25 %
equal rights for women of color 0 votes - 0 %
the glass ceiling             1 vote - 25 %

equaling a total of 12 votes and 250% accounted for.

Neat trick!  ;)

(I had this open in another window...thought I had already posted it! Results are still goofy...but, the numbers have changed.)

by Kysen 2008-06-01 01:14PM | 0 recs
tricked you!

the polls here give a cool option to allow you to vote for ore than one choice!

by catchaz 2008-06-01 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: tricked you!
You did!
You did trick me!
But......I want my vote back!!! I would have chosen more than the one I did! No fair!
Is there a committee for this?
(I jest!)
by Kysen 2008-06-01 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama on Feminist Iss

Ummm yes I am a feminist but my vote for Hillary Clinton has NOTHING to do with her gender. There are plenty of women, who, if running for president, I would vote & campaign against.

However, as an aside, there has definitely been some misogynistic undertones within the Obama campaign, the press etc. Really recognizing the value that Clinton brings to the table, her fight & her ability to help him win this election as the VP pick might make me re-think whether the campaign personality has a belligerence problem, which I am starting to suspect right now.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-01 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama on Feminist Iss

As an Obama supporter (I write that so much, I need to start abbreviating it AAOS), I agree that he has had some relatively mild, hopefully unintentional sexist/misogynist moments:  "Sweetie," "Periodically," "Likable enough."  I don't think any of these were hurtful, and I certainly don't think they were meant to be.  But they really are the kind of comments that we need to be working to get rid of.  Hopefully Obama will realize this and try to avoid these types of words and phrases in the future.

More importantly, IMHO, has been some of the really ridiculous blatantly, consciously hurtful language of people like Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, and others.  That kind of shit wasn't even acceptable in the 1970s, let alone today.  It's like I could feel us literally regressing with some of their crap.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-01 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama on Feminist Iss

And the brushing her off his color & walking into the Jay-Z song at a campaign rally and truthfully the outrage regarding her campaign has been much more mean spirited then, even how a real spoiler (ie a Ralph Nadar who was HURTING the party) was treated.  The blatant misogyny all over have shocked me (although I know it exists I sort of try I guess to believe we are a bit more advanced as a party), disgusted me, and disturbed. I don't know which is worse; the fact that it is still prevalent or the fact that I don't see as many bothered by it as I thought would be.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 12:53PM | 0 recs
this is the most insulting diary

I have read today.  First, I would not believe a word he said anyway.  Secound, HE IS A SEXIST. I am not interested in asking him for favors for "women's  issues" in exchange for my vote.  For God's sake, this is not some "women's ghetto" campaign Hillary is running.

by Teacher1956 2008-06-01 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: this is the most insulting diary

How do you know that HE IS A SEXIST?

That would be news to Cassandra Butts, a friend of his since law school who is also a top policy adviser.  Or to Julianna Smoot, his finance director, Devorah Adler, his research director, and Betsy Myers, the Chief Operating Officer of his campaign.

And then, of course, there's Michelle.  Don't you think that choice speaks volumes about the man?  She's not exactly someone he chose just to bolster his ego.  

Or, I suppose, you could ask Barack's sister, Dr. Maya Soetoro-Ng, who seems to think he has a great and healthy respect for women.

Please give him a fair shake.

by TL 2008-06-01 01:40PM | 0 recs
Michelle is sexist

When asked if she ever wanted to vote for a woman for president her answer was a curt "no."

She said women married to men who cheated are not fit to run the White House.

She wears 3" heels as if it's the year 1955.

by catfish2 2008-06-01 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle is sexist

Link?  Proof?

by neonplaque 2008-06-01 01:50PM | 0 recs
Oh, the irony.

You're accusing a woman of being sexist because she "wears 3" heels as if it's the year 1955"?

Not just a bigot apologist, but a sexist. Keep it up, catfish.

by Firewall 2008-06-01 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, the irony.

I wear 3 inch heels.  I don't think they are 1955.

of course, my 3 inch heels are not spikes, but more stable.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle is sexist

Wow.  Just wow.

by TL 2008-06-01 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle is sexist

Michelle Obama, a few years back, stated that Hillary Clinton was her favorite first lady and a role model.

Michelle is going to get the same crap that Hillary got back in 1992.  Remember how everyone liked Bill, with his easy smile and charisma?  And people diss'd Hillary, because she was strong, forceful, not so much with the smiles, not as charismatic, outspoken, and had a hell of a time with her hair?

I see more similarities between Michelle of 2008 and Hillary of 1992.  They aren't that different.  Michelle will learn to relax and smile more and be more positive, just as Hillary has learned to do.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: this is the most insulting diary

This comment is certainly going to sound racist or sexist to some people, but one of the things that first struck me about Obama is that he has a black wife.  And she is strong.  And intelligent.  And out-spoken.  And he loves all that stuff about her.  

There are many famous black men married to quiet little white trophy wives.  SNL's joke about how dating white women in college actually made Obama "more black" was actually very apropos.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-01 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: this is the most insulting diary

You can decide whether my troll-rate was for calling Obama (our likely Democratic nominee) a sexist or for use of the phrase "women's ghetto" (even sarcastically).

Let's make like the RBC and call it half a troll-rate for each.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-01 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama on Feminist Iss

He're got a whole platform on women's issues. omenissues

What's the problem?

by neonplaque 2008-06-01 01:45PM | 0 recs
So he might want to stop praising Jay Z

and recognize "BITCH" songs do not exactly advance women's stature.

by catfish2 2008-06-01 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: So he might want to stop praising Jay Z

You ever heard this song?  Didn't think so.

by neonplaque 2008-06-01 01:48PM | 0 recs
He might want to address how Father Pfleger

personally demeaned Hillary and all women, especially white women in that sermon. Same with Wright.

by catfish2 2008-06-01 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: He might want to address how Father Pfleger

Why would he do that?  He hasn't been to his church in months, and that priest isn't even a member.

by neonplaque 2008-06-01 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: He might want to address how Father Pfleger

I believe Obama is on the first step to becoming a Pastafarian.


by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-01 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: He might want to address how Father Pfleger

The part where he said the comments did not reflect America, and were backward and divisive - that's not enough?

by TL 2008-06-01 02:11PM | 0 recs
Not really.

Look, he doesn't have to apologize to her. But his tepid outrage signaled to a lot of us he just doesn't get it.

by catfish2 2008-06-01 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW is the Time to Press Obama on Feminist Iss

You know who's terrible on feminist issues?

John McCain

by mydoubled 2008-06-01 02:33PM | 0 recs
Good job

Nice diary. Keep up with the positive attitude. Such an approach will definitely help Obama rather than the "deal with it and follow me" approach.

by Sandeep 2008-06-01 03:08PM | 0 recs
Men in America are in Crisis

Women are neglecting to realize the decline of the American Male. It is not a minor issue, unless you want your daughters to choose from ex cons dead beats and mommas boys you might want to put more effort into mens issues. There are 2.4 million more women in college than men and the margin grows by 100,000 each year. It has gotten so bad that colleges are offering affirmative action to men by default. Essentially men get in with lower grades because fewer men apply and colleges dont want to have schools with NO MEN in them. Of course some feminist will roll there eyes and say men deserve to fail, but that does not help your daughters or America. Men not achieving there potential just shifts the burden to women and hurts your sons.

by edtastic 2008-06-01 07:58PM | 0 recs
Feminism helps Men in America in Crisis

i agree completely. and feminism helps everybody.

Susuan Faludi's "Stiffed" is a good account of the ways men are stiffed by a patriarchal sexist society, and how feminism can help that.

by catchaz 2008-06-02 08:53AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads