Thank you NARAL

In the last few days I have been growing more concerned about the us vs them mentality that appeared to be developing in Hillary's camp, especially in terms of its potential impact on feminism. I wrote here and in my blog <> the following:

"It is time that feminists who have supported Clinton for the right reasons step up to the plate and criticize her for unacceptable remarks and practices. The women's movement has been deeply divided over the Clinton candidacy. Yet what started out as a legitimate disagreement about the merits of the candidates and their agendas has turned into a test of one's feminist credentials. But the test is perverse. It is not a test of feminist principles and values. It has become a test of loyalty to Clinton, in spite of the fact that she is undermining basic feminist values..... ........"

I can't tell you how pleased I am that NARAL has stepped up to the plate, even if its position doesn't entail any direct criticism of Hillary's remarks and practices.  

Tags: clinton, Democratic Party, Election, feminism, Hillary, NARAL, obama, Women's Movement (all tags)



Re: Thank you NARAL

That's NARAL PAC. NARAL itself has distanced itself from those remarks. Any feminisnt who supports Obama over Clinton should hang up her fightin' boots. She has done caved in to the enemy.  Obama has run an overtly sexist campaign, votes present on choice issues and then lies about his reasons, and wanted to vote for Roberts.

Clinton is the choice for a real feminist - she's got a long resume of progressive accomplishments on behalf of under privileged families and women. Obama cannot say that.

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Got that wrong - it's some of the state NARALs that are distancing themselves from that endorsment. I've done a lot of volunteer work for NARAL since the mid-eighties. I called them up this evening and told them to take me off their list. It was anti-feminist choice, and they'll get another dime or minute from me.

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

AUMF sure did an awful lot for women in Iraq, if by an awful lot you mean ruined their lives FOREVER.

by terra 2008-05-14 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

yeah, you're right, It's terrible what we've done. But that's Bush's fault - he could have abided by the terms of the AUMF, and Blix would have finished his inspections and there would have been no war. That's what Clinton and other Dems were supporting. Bush failed to abide by the terms he was given and he forced inspectors to leave Iraq before the job was done.

Yes, Clinton is the only real choice if one is a feminist. Obama has run an overtly misogynist campaign and has not distanced himself from the misogyny expressed by his supporters. It's a totally anti-feminist move, and NARAL will never get another dime from me again.

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

I don't believe he's run an overtly misogynist campaign and I'd like some examples from you or ANYONE else touting this line. Before today (the "sweetie" incident, which I felt was out of line on his part) I have not seen a single example. If you believe the media has been sexist, fine, I've seen examples of that, too. I've also seen some very virulent examples of racism threaded throughout the media and the Clinton campaign, an ugly reminder that the women's rights movement once splintered over the fight for black voting rights, with some of our more beloved feminist figures coming down AGAINST them.

You know where I've seen the most sexism? The Clinton campaign. You heard me. Testicular fortitude? If she gave Obama one ball she'd still have 2? Where do they get off equating male genitalia with strength and leadership? How would you like it if Barack Obama said "I don't have a pussy, so you can trust me with the tough decisions on national security"?

by terra 2008-05-14 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Then you haven't been paying attention. There was his idiotic "tea with ambassadors" comment about her foreign policy experience - which is, of course, directly in conflict with every account of the Clinton White House that's been written. There was his "periodic" remark - which is the kind of low level crap I expect out of Republicans. And there was his "claws come out" remark. He's definitely got issues with women - he's made that more than clear.

As for the masculine genitalia rhetoric, it's not language I would use. Nor is it the language of the campaign but a couple of their supporters - no, Carville is not an official part of her staff. That being said - she is carving out territory in an, up until now, solely masculine territory and masculine rhetoric will apply for the time being. Is Colbert sexist? No, this was humor just the same. Remember, it was John Edwards that described Obama as a pussy - not Clinton or her staff.

Yes, Obama has engaged in distinctly misogynist rhetoric. The "tea with ambassadors" remark, in light of her well documented by many sources, role in foreign policy, is no different than if someone compared Obama's time in Springfield to shoe shining.

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 10:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Periodic does not nor has it ever been connected with a menstrual cycle. A "period" became slang for that far, far after the term "periodic".

Male cats have claws too.

Men also drink tea, especially in England. Tea is not a feminine drink, any more than coffee is a masculine one.

I find overt references to testicles a lot more sexist, even if they're used to try and "bolster" the female candidate.

by upstate girl 2008-05-14 10:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Then why did she vote against the Levin amendment, which would have required that the UN inspections be carried out first, and then if they could not have, Bush could go to war.  Sorry, the evidence does not support your argument.

Obama has never been a misogynist, nor has his campaign ever expressed misogynistic under or over tones.  And there's a letter circulating signed by hundreds of Feminists, more feminist than you, who would beg to differ on your definition of feminism.  I have serious doubts that NARAL ever received money from you.

Quit slandering Democratic candidates.

by The Distillery 2008-05-14 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

LOL - You guys hid my response to AUMF post. Wow.

What I said that apparently offended the Obama supporters greatly is that had Bush abided by the terms of the AUMF, then the inspections would have been finished and we wouldn't have gone to war. The fact that he didn't abide by the terms is on Bush - not on Clinton. Clinton voted to give Hans Blix what he felt was necessary to finish the inspections - our only hope of stopping Bush from invading. Remember, we were losing the senate in three weeks - Bush was getting his authorization either with the UN demands or without it.

And that's what Obama supporters are afraid that others will read. How sad. How predictable.

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Wrong.  What you said that offended Obama supporters and should offend all Democrats is that he has run a misogynistic campaign and his supporters are misogynistic.  When you blatantly slander fellow Democrats, I would think you would expect to be HR'ed.

by The Distillery 2008-05-14 10:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

and yet, that wasn't in that particular comment. Yes, obama has engaged in misogynist rhetoric - that is a fact. yes, his campaign has ignored the tremendous amount of misogyny that has been engaged in is name - that is a fact also. Has he commented on Rhodes diatribe yet? Felt any need to distance himself from the first viable female contender for the nomination being called a stupid fucking whore repeatedly at an event organized by his supporters, for his supporters and advertised on his site? No, he hasn't.

Bigotry is wrong - whether it's misogyny or racism.

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 11:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

I think you have facts confused with conspiracy theories.  I want you to give me one example where Obama has shown a hatred of women.  ONE example.

And just so you understand, the definition of misogyny is hatred of women.

by The Distillery 2008-05-14 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Not this crap again - I must have seen you post the Rhodes stuff 20 or 30 times, every time someone tells you IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS CAMPAIGN.  It was indeed connected to people that support Obama, but that does not make it an official event.  You know perfectly well that no candidate is going to get involved with denouncing supporters, otherwise Hillary would need to spend every available minute apologising for the racist crap spewed here, on Hillaryis44 and Taylor Marsh.  

Do you want Clinton to apologise for everything advertised on her site?  Because anyone can post anything on the Obama site - it does not make it an official evernt.  You know this - yet you continue the accusation.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-15 01:55AM | 0 recs

It was in that particular comment.  To wit:

Obama has run an overtly misogynist campaign and has not distanced himself from the misogyny expressed by his supporters.

Right below a bunch of stuff about Bush, AUMF, Blix, etc.  Right here.

by Progressive Witness 2008-05-15 05:25AM | 0 recs
So now if we don't

hate NARAL for supporting the presumptive nominee that has a 100 percent rating we have to give up our Feminist title?

What sort of purity test is this?  I will put my Feminist credentials up against any arsehat that wants to play a game of "top this".  I am the freakin' embodiment of feminist ideals but because I think NARAL did the right thing (just like I believe that Emily's List, who I financially support) did the right thing I don't qualify any more.

I have a big ole ragin' F-bomb for you.

by Sychotic1 2008-05-14 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: So now if we don't

If you support some joker with virtually no legislative experience, who engages in overt misogynist rhetoric against a woman with a long record of progressive accomplishment - then no, you aren't a feminist.

And your F-bomb isn't surprising or impressive. You're hanging out with people who think calling Clinton a Fucking whore is acceptable and who shut down Digby's comments by calling her a cunt. What should we expect from pigs but grunts?

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 09:45PM | 0 recs
I am not hanging out with anyone

And if you think that most of that shit is Obama supporters you are smokin some tall weed.  Some of the evilest, most divisive shit coming from both sides are really GOoPers who think it is funny to stir the shit.

And you completely deserve that are this far from being a troll.  I will not be engaging you again because I actually think you are an idiot who is easily taken in.

by Sychotic1 2008-05-14 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I am not hanging out with anyone

Dont' flatter yourself - most of it's coming from Obama supporters. Speaking of idiots easily taken in, I'm not supporting the person who hasnt' done anything in his life. I'm not supporting the guy who graduates from Harvard School and proceeds to have the legal career of someone who graduates from unaccredited night school. I'm not the one supporting the guy who couldn't get one bill passed in six years. I'm supporting the guy who only has a legislative record because he was handed the work of others.

Go ahead - tell me three accomplishments of Obama's between Obama leaving law school and Obama announcing his run for the US senate. Bet you can't do it.

Why would i care if you tell me to go fuck myself? I mean, that's what I expect from you guys. You say most of the vile stuff isn't coming from Obama supporters, but you were instantly vile. That's what Obama supporters do - the call Clinton supporters names. It's the emotional level the entire campaign functions at - that's why he's attracting so many children to his ranks.

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I am not hanging out with anyone

He beat Edwards
He beat Clinton
He pissed you off

Good enough for me.

by Sychotic1 2008-05-14 10:04PM | 0 recs
Gift Ban Act, health insurance expansion,

death penalty moratorium, videotaping confessions, stopping racial profiling. Oh, wait, that's five.

by bobdoleisevil 2008-05-14 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Gift Ban Act, health insurance expansion,

He supplied one amendment to the gift ban act - that's it. Now how many of those bills didn't originate with another legislator and were handed to Obama by Emil Jones? And how many of them pass after he's decided to run for the US senate?

How is that a man can not have more than one or two accomplishments over that ten year period while being in the Illinois senate and working at a civil right's law firm? How does that happen?

When asked about his legislative record, Obama rattles off several bills he sponsored as an Illinois lawmaker.

He expanded children's health insurance; made the state Earned Income Tax Credit refundable for low-income families; required public bodies to tape closed-door meetings to make government more transparent; and required police to videotape interrogations of homicide suspects.

And the list goes on.

It's a lengthy record filled with core liberal issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.

Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for six years of Obama's seven-year tenure. Each session, Obama backed legislation that went nowhere; bill after bill died in committee. During those six years, Obama, too, would have had difficulty naming any legislative achievements.

Then, in 2002, dissatisfaction with President Bush and Republicans on the national and local levels led to a Democratic sweep of nearly every lever of Illinois state government. For the first time in 26 years, Illinois Democrats controlled the governor's office as well as both legislative chambers.

The white, race-baiting, hard-right Republican Illinois Senate Majority Leader James "Pate" Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr., a gravel-voiced, dark-skinned African-American known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor.

Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama's. He became Obama's kingmaker.

Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city's most popular black call-in radio program.

I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:

"He said, 'Cliff, I'm gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'"

"Oh, you are? Who might that be?"

"Barack Obama."

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.

"I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."

During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law -- including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.

How singularly unimpressive.

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 10:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Gift Ban Act, health insurance expansion,

A block quote without a link?  How singularly unimpressive.

by The Distillery 2008-05-14 10:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Gift Ban Act, health insurance expansion,

I'm happy to provide the link. ews/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 11:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Gift Ban Act, health insurance expansion,
You need to cool off. Your posts indicate that you are far too intelligent to continually get entangled in these flame wars. If you can't respond in a kind manner to an obviously strong Democratic supporter in a positive way, even if you disagree, you need to discharge on people who are your enemies. Okay?
by Jeter 2008-05-15 01:43AM | 0 recs
Do you realize....

you continually insult millions of women who have voted for Obama with your ridiculous rantings?

And let's see proof of your "overt misogynist rhetoric" charge, that is nothing more than complete bs.  

More and more it is clear that a segment of Hillary supporters are just as much anti-Obama as they are posi-Hillary, if not MORE so given the fact that Hillary has said she will support Obama in the GE and asked her supporters to do the same.

by Seeking Cincinnatus 2008-05-14 10:08PM | 0 recs
Digby has comments on her blog

they aren't shut down now...

by Student Guy 2008-05-14 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Digby has comments on her blog

No one said they were shut down now. Go to her site and search the word "cunt". That's what Obama supporters have contributed to our national dialogue in the name of unity - calling the first viable female contender for the presidential nomination a "cunt" and a "fucking whore". Thanks, guys.

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Digby has comments on her blog

Would you say its fair then to hold you and other Clinton supporters responsible for blog comments calling Obama any number of racial slurs? That kind of blame goes both ways.

by upstate girl 2008-05-14 10:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Digby has comments on her blog

No widely-read, non-partisan (as far as the primary goes) blog has had to shut down comments because of Clinton supporters. Not one. That is a fact. Taylor Marsh and Digby (Digby hasn't endorsed by my impression is that she voted for Obama) have both had to shut comments down though because of the hate comments from Obama supporters. Ben Smith either had to shut down commetns because of Obama supporters or threatened to one day - they were that out of line on his site as well. Then there is Paul Krugman and the attacks he has endured on his site.

Randi Rhodes is a nationally syndicated talk show host with a huge following in the progressive community. She isn't some anonymous poster some where. She was an established celebrity, performing at an event organized by Obama supporters, for Obama supporters and advertised on obama's site. It's as offensive as it gets and your candidate doesn't have the minimum level of 20th century couth to distance himself from it.

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 10:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Digby has comments on her blog

You still didn't answer my question.

by upstate girl 2008-05-14 11:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Digby has comments on her blog
The constantly repeated lies are realy annoying.
After how many times does it land with you, that it was a fundraiser for a local radio station. This has been debunked so many times it's becoming silly.
The event was advertised on, but that does not make it an Obama event.
by hebi 2008-05-15 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Digby has comments on her blog
Senator Obama is trying hard. He's not stupid. Fight the media, They start wars and pretend they had nothing to do with it. That thing you are talking about is a Roger Ailes pile of vomit, to be sure. You are right. Forgiving does not mean forgetting. Oppressed people have learned this through generations of abuse. Speak your mind. Discover who your true friends and supporters are and work with them to defeat McCain. There will always be very radical angry partisans on both sides of the political spectrun. As both Clinton and Obama have clearly indicated, the time to run moderate center is now, then we'll mess up years of republican abuse when we get in power. It's ben a long, brutal ugly eight years.
by Jeter 2008-05-15 02:11AM | 0 recs
her site is

right because she allows comments, maybe she didn't for a while, but I've been reading her for about 2 weeks and she allows comments...

by Student Guy 2008-05-15 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: So now if we don't
Little Otter. You have been a pleasure to read and bond with for many months now. Please tine it down. I know you feel justified and right about what you are saying, and you have every right to say it, but your statements are too severe. We'll work it out. We really will. We're all bruised and beaten up but both of our candidates have forced issues into the public mindset and they will not be forgotten. We just ned to ensure that McCain does not win. Anti-Obama hatred is just as bad as anti-Hillary hatred. You've got a case. maybe we need to cool off before coming back to it. Hillary may or may not win, but right now I'm really impressed and proud of her. Iwant to feel the same way about all Democrats right now. I've suffered years of racial and other forms of oppression that Obama nor Clinton will solve during this primary, but McCain will truly make it worse than anything we have experienced so far. Peace, my friend, your are a righteous and smart person who should not be silenced - just more peaceful. you will have your say. Okay you wonderfully passionate Democrat?
by Jeter 2008-05-15 02:03AM | 0 recs
I have to agree

Hillary has been what we call a "liberal feminist" (as opposed to a radical feminist) from day one.  Barack Obama has undercut the lifetime body of this woman's work and caricatured her as a "racist" for the sake of siphoning votes in what has now become the most racially polarized Democratic electorate in history.  He's an opportunistic parasite, worse than most politicians because he actually has the audacity to pretend he's "above" politics as usual.  

Although I would like the war to end and detest the idea of punishing a generation with right wing federal judges, I will be closely following the predicted House and Senate composition to see if McCain's presidency may be a tolerable allowance.  If not, then I'll vote for Obama, but it probably won't matter because even the Democrats in my state (Pennsylvania) prefer McCain to Obama.  

Hillary > John > Barack

Welcome to PA.  

by BPK80 2008-05-14 11:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

I'm not much of a "diary policeman" and disagree with some of what you say, but nothing you write is worthy of all these Troll and Hide ratings.  

You have a strong opinion, you state it without attacking people individually, and people who take issue with it should respond with dialogue and counter-arguments, not drive-by troll ratings.  

by BPK80 2008-05-15 12:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Any feminist that supports Obama:

a) has the right not to be accused of being anti-feminist because they have made their own decision on who they support for the nomination, based on not only specifically "female" issues, but on all issues.

b) has the right to have his or her opinion respected due to the fact that women do not have to follow lockstep with any ideology - we do have the ability to think and reason for ourselves. Independent women make up their own minds, they do not have their minds made up for them by threats of being called a traitor.

c) has the right to realize winning one pyrrhic battle (a female nominee at the cost of overriding the legitimate winner of the nomination process) does not excuse losing the war (allowing another Republican presidency).

by upstate girl 2008-05-14 10:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

You aren't a feminist if you're supporting Obama. You're a person who is supporting a dramatically less qualified male at the expense of a greatly more experience female that has nearly identical policies on every front. And further, if the erstwhile feminist in question considers herself progressive - you are supporting a male candidate with less progressive positions across the board and and almost completely absent record of progressive accomplishments.

Supporting less qualified males at the expense of far more qualified females is the very definition of bigotry. And misogyny is no less offensive than racism. At least, to genuine progressives it isn't. I don't know about Obama supporters though.

Progressives support universal healthcare. Obama doesn't. Progressives don't engage in misogynist rhetoric - Obama does. Progressive don't ape GOP talking points on social security - Obama does. and now, while Clinton is reaffirming her commitment to withdraw a brigade a month regardless of what transpires, Obama's camp is moving away from the idea. He's voted in lockstep with her since he got to the senate and now he's the one moving right. Let me tell you - he has no intention of ending our involvment in Iraq.

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Judging a woman's validity of her support for a candidate based on the gender of the person she supports is sexist. Your opinion that Obama is a weaker candidate or that he himself has engaged in misogynistic rhetoric is just that - your opinion, poorly supported in some cases, I might add. The strength of your opinion does not make the women that support Obama because they believe his platform is just as strong as Clinton's anti-feminist.

There are no set rules for "qualifications" for the Presidency. There is no job discrimination laws applicable for the Presidency. Saying Clinton is more or less qualified than Obama, or vice versa, is a matter of opinion. You can back up your argument, but there is simply no standard level of "experience" like there is with a traditional employment position.

The rest of your post is opinion you haven't backed up with any verifiable fact. And regardless of your opinion, you fail to recognize the reality that no one Presidential candidate will be perfect on all issues and the vast majority of the time voting for the better of the two choices is the only realistic option Americans have. To ignore reality entirely isn't a good way to promote any cause.

by upstate girl 2008-05-14 11:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Ahhhh, you're applying Republican standards to who can become president. Well, there's our difference right there - I think having accomplishments to your own name matters. I think getting things done that make other people's lives better matters. I think having more than a couple years actual legislative experience means that you have a better chance of getting stuff done - evidenced by the fact that more experienced legislators usually are more successful at passing legislation. I think caring about the issues and tackling projects that improve the lives of others whether one is in or out of office makes one more qualified. I think traveling to other countries and meeting people and understanding how they live makes one more qualified. You don't. So there ya' go. We'll never agree on candidates because you're about whimsy. Is being teh awesome qualification for the presidency?

No, I don't think feminists support Obama - how could they? A guy who goes on job interviews with his wife. Creepy. A guy who exposes his daughters to Reverend Wright's overt misogyny. Irresponsible. A guy who doesn't have the courage to vote pro-choice and then lies about his reasons for it - Bonnie Grabenhofer, who was the president of NOW, had to point out that Lorna Howard had been out of office for three years when the bills in question passed. Poor Lorna. Why did she identify herself as the president of NOW but not tell us she'd been out of office for several years at the time in  question? Not only does he lie about his reasons, he gets a woman to lie for him. That's just not how feminists behave.

by Little Otter 2008-05-14 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Obama has done all of the above. I know that proof has been given for this to you before; you choose to believe its not enough, or not applicable. Again, your choice, but its still your opinion.

When did Rev. Wright say anything about gender? That requires some proof, that's the first time I've heard that one.

Obama's voting record has been backed by Planned Parenthood leaders numerous times. Are they not feminist enough to count?

When a woman supports Obama, he's using them. Your broad brush is purposefully designed to disregard any female that supports Obama, regardless of reason or strength of support. When you disregard women's voices entirely because you don't agree with them to the point of calling them traitors for not agreeing with you - that's sexist.

by upstate girl 2008-05-14 11:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Feminists don't support misogynists. If you support Obama, you're supporting a misogynist. That means you aren't any more a feminist that Camille Paglia.

Yes, Wright used misogynist rhetoric - the fact you don't realize this makes my point perfectly. It was in his diatribe about how Clinton has never had to work twice as hard.....

You're endorsing a sexist candidate who had repeatedly demeaned the first viable female candidate for the presidency of the united States, and who has a far superior record and more progressive platform on all fronts.

by Little Otter 2008-05-15 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

I don't care either way about experience (Dick Cheney anyone?) - I'm supporting Obama because he is smarter, better organized, more disciplined, has better advisers, knows his message, is way more likeable and has run a campaign that has demolished your experienced candidate.  That is not bigotry, it is common sense.

Now please provide examples of Obama's misogynistic rhetoric - his, not a supporters.  

by interestedbystander 2008-05-15 02:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

I support Clinton but I agree with this statement.  While I think Clinton is more of a feminist than Obama, key to feminism is the principle that all women occupy their full autonomy of choice.  Women exercising that discretion, free from others impugning their femininity, is fully congruent with feminism.  

by BPK80 2008-05-14 11:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

(Imagine I mojo'd this comment.)

Insinuating that any woman cannot think for herself is the heart of sexism, and I'm astounded that some self-proclaimed feminists are so eager to use the same mindset used against us for so long against other women simply because they don't agree with them.

by upstate girl 2008-05-15 12:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Feminists have every right to make the case for Hillary (and my strongly feminist views have influenced my decision to support her), but it's admittedly over the line to insinuate that all women should "shut up and get in line."  

For some reason it reminds me of a line from Eight Easy Steps by Alanis Morissette... "[I'll teach you] How to hate women when you're supposed to be a feminist."

by BPK80 2008-05-15 12:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL
You have been an incredible treat this entire primary season,.Keep it up. We need you, badly.
by Jeter 2008-05-15 02:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Thank you.  I'll be here!  As long as there are elections and what not.  This is my favorte blog now after 4 years at "that other place."  

by BPK80 2008-05-15 03:56AM | 0 recs
Very well said

by mattjfogarty 2008-05-15 12:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Well, NARAL national has done some dumb stuff in recent years.  They backed Linc Chaffee and iirc Joe Lieberman.  There is a sense that the governing board isn't quite up to snuff.

I couldn't care who they endorse.  Basically, when they endorse they give the anti-choice side a clear signal who to vote against.  

by killjoy 2008-05-14 10:39PM | 0 recs
What is it about bloggers

who post here to pimp their private blogs with half-assed diaries that are nothing but a link drop?

I think if anyone cared to read what you had to say you wouldn't have enough time spamming your blog on diaries around the net. You'd be busy engaging your readers on your blog.

by LatinoVoter 2008-05-14 11:08PM | 0 recs

It's a bad idea for any issues based organization to make an endorsement at this time.  


Because people forget the good and remember the bad.  Those who support Obama will be pleased with the choice but years and even months from now, it will be forgotten.

By contrast, those who support Clinton will remember this group as a political opponent.  

This was the logic that J & E Edwards put forth regarding their decision not to make an endorsement, but rather to commit themselves fully to fighting poverty.  Rather than alienating half of their audience, they decided it would be best to sit out on the sidelines and not be partisan for the sake of unified support behind their causes.  

I respected that.  

It's hard to say why exactly John flip-flopped on that one today, but in the long term, his endorsement will be remembered more by Clinton supporters at the expense of his ability to personally appeal to them for his causes.  

by BPK80 2008-05-15 12:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

Agreed.  Wrote them a letter and made (another) donation to them tonight to thank them for doing the right thing and taking a principled stand.

by mattjfogarty 2008-05-15 12:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I disagree with it, but thanks. Can you see how stating you made a donation is a bit antagonistic though? Some of the most ardent and vocal Obama supporters have made really supportive statements of Hillary Clinton today. Join them? We all really need each other. Even the mathematical geniuses and the no frills or emotions dont compute kind of guys and gals might need to just let some unproductive anger go.
by Jeter 2008-05-15 01:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NARAL

I am glad that we can disagree and still discuss the issues. I respect your opinion and do not mean to upset anyone.

As for being antagonistic, I certainly do not intend it to be.  To be honest, I think it does not make sense that any pro-Obama, or in this case pro-Naral, message is considered antagonistic to Hillary.  It really is not all about Hillary.

In fact, in a diary that is clearly in favor of the endorsement that Naral made, this is very specifically the most appropriate time and place to make a comment showing that I favor that decision and will put my money where my mouth is.

I actually think that your criticism of my support for Naral endorsing Obama in a diary that is specifically about folks celebrating that decision is the comment that is arguably most out of place.

I felt it was very important, especially in light of all the incredibly nasty comments and diaries here and the nasty comments on Naral's website, to show that there are many who supported their decision too.

What was antagonistic, I feel, was the overwhelming show of petulance by many on the MyDD users towards Naral making what they felt was the right decision at the right time.

And to be frank, most of the country has moved past the HRC candidacy.  It really is past time, many of us feel, for all Democrats to be working towards defeating McCain. I do understand that it will take time for many who supported HRC to get to that point, and that is fine.  I have been very disappointed by almost every election in my life and I know that feeling well. It is not a comfortable place to be.

But I don't think it is fair for people to ask the country to wait while HRC supporters mourn, any more than it would be fair for me to ask HRC supporters to just forget about their feelings and move on.

by mattjfogarty 2008-05-15 11:08AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads