UPDATE at end of post: this is the first time NOW endorsed a presidential ticket without a woman on it!
In the finest example of Palin Derangement Syndrome yet, the National Organization for Women on Tuesday endorsed Barack Obama for President.
In its formal announcement at the National Press Club (video embedded right), members of NOW, along with leaders of other women's groups, personally attacked Alaska Gov. Palin as if she was a criminal that deserved to be behind bars rather than someone that should be seriously considered as vice president.
Here's what NOW chairman Kim Gandy said:
The more women learn about what Sarah Palin stands for, and the fact that as mayor of Wasilla, she required rape victims to pay for the cost of processing the police evidence in their cases, up to $1,200. The fact that she opposes abortion even in the case of a child who's been raped or is a victim of incest. Her positions are so completely out of touch with those of the majority of American women that I think those polls, even if they were right to begin with, I think they'll be swinging back the other way very quickly as women find out what Sarah Palin stands for.
Even more absurd, this was stated by Ellie Smeal, the chairman of the Feminist Majority:
You know, women have true equality when conservative women and liberal women and progressive women and women from all stripes have an equal chance at the top. So, you know, we are not against a woman being on a ticket for president. But, we wish it was a ticket that stood for women and women's rights. Since it doesn't, we're opposing that ticket...This ticket is not standing for the advancement of women.
This is what Deborah Frett, the CEO of Business and Professional Women actually said:
One other thing I wanted to say is that, you know, the ultimate working woman or mother is one that has the support and resources to be a successful caregiver, and an employee without penalty. And we want to see all working women have that opportunity, not just one, not just ten, all working women.
But maybe the most absurd statement came a tad later when NOW chairman Gandy stepped back behind the podium:
NOW does not frequently endorse in a presidential race. This is very unusual for us. And we did wait to see who would be on the ticket. Although Sen. Obama has a wonderful record, we did wait to see because not only was Hillary Clinton considered, but there were some names being tossed out I think not by the Obama campaign, but perhaps by the press. But there were some pretty nerve-racking names that were being tossed out as potential running mates. But, when Joe Biden was named as running mate, we've worked with Joe Biden literally for decades, we know him well, we know he's an advocate, we know he's a supporter, and we know that he'll stand up for women because he's done it.
Imagine that: A 65-year-old man is a better advocate for women's issues than a 44-year-old woman that is currently a governor.
This is why syndicated columnist Suzanne Fields wrote Saturday:
NOW ought to change its name to WOW. Such stunning independence. A working woman with five children, the governor of a sovereign state, isn't a sufficient accomplishment. Who knew?
I agree, Suzanne...WOW!
*****Update: The Washington Post's "The Trial" blog reported Saturday that this is the first time in NOW's history that it endorsed a presidential ticket without a woman on it (h/t NBer cjbreisch):
A group of Hillary Clinton supporters condemned the National Organization for Women's endorsement of Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden earlier this week.
"The New Agenda is concerned that NOW's recent endorsement of Barack Obama leaves many women in this country out in the cold," the nonpartisan nonprofit group said in a release Friday. "The endorsement seems all the more puzzling given the fact that the Republican Party is running its first female candidate for Vice-President, Gov. Sarah Palin, and the Green Party is fielding its first all-woman presidential ticket with Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente."
The New Agenda points out that since its 1966 founding, NOW has previously endorsed at the presidential level only four times -- and each time there was a woman on the ticket: Shirley Chisolm in the 1972 Democratic primary; Democrats Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro for the 1984 general election; Carol Mosely Braun in the 2003 Democratic primary; and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary.
"We find it quite perplexing that NOW has chosen to endorse an all-male ticket after not endorsing recent candidates such as Gov. Bill Clinton, Sen. Al Gore, or Sen. John Kerry," said New Agenda co-founder Amy Siskind in the statement.
So do I.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
They don't like Palin
September 21, 2008 - 00:04 ET by jkwtradingThey don't like Palin because Palin likes men.
Shouldnt it be LOW instead of NOW?
September 21, 2008 - 00:23 ET by aeroveloLiberal Organization of Women?
Yea, because obviously having children and having a career and having a great husband and enjoying a great life in a great state is not something a "normal woman" would want.
See...if you ask me, a woman is at her most feminin when she is breast feeding a child. Men cannot have children, ment cant breast feed, so thats obviously a woman's domain.
When I see these women who represent this organization I think to myself....where are the women? These are a bunch of guys dressed up in drag. These "people" have long since lost touch with what its like to be a woman.
Now, you dont have to be pretty to be feminin...thats understood, but when you cannot relate to a woman that has a wonderful family of healthy, happy children, a supportive husband, and a powerful career, then you know your message and the group that pushes that message has gone WAAAY off track.
I grew up in Alaska and can relate to living the independent, self-reliant way. I can tell you, there are are plenty of liberals up there, but they dont stray too far from the health food stores. The real Alaskans live a lot closer to nature and can support themselves when the weather isolates them. The liberals move down south for the winter when thats at risk.
Im all in favor of Sarah's flavor of feminism...and I suspect there are many other men AND women out there who feel the same way.
---
Ask yourself: Do I want a good paying job, or do I want a government hand out. Its that simple!
These feminists have some
September 21, 2008 - 00:36 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveThese feminists have some whacked out priorities and a really strange definition of happiness.
I would venture to say that what brings happiness to men and women are much the same. Having said that, I will go on record to say that I have had more joy and happiness in raising my children than any other pursuit. I'd be willing to bet that my parents would say the same...even after raising 5 boys...and now having grandchildren continues that happiness.
I don't get joy and happiness from my job...I get a living from that. My hobbies only serve as momentary diversions from the daily grind. My happiest times are when I am spending time with my family and seeing their accomplishments and development.
Maybe I'm simple. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but these feminists are chasing after something they can never catch. And if they could catch whatever it was they were after...they wouldn't know what to do with it and it wouldn't be enough to fulfill their vanity.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
WB Mean Gene,
September 21, 2008 - 00:56 ET by RESTLESS 1Glad to see you commenting again.
I think you hit the nail on the head. NOW is kinda like the dog chasing the car; they don't know why they are chasing it, and wouldn't know what to do with it if they caught it.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Well stated aerovelo
September 21, 2008 - 03:40 ET by TruestarAnd I agree with the other sentiments here.
LOW is exactly what NOW should be renamed. I've always understood NOW's reason for existence to be to promote the betterment of ALL women, not just liberal women, or only those women who support abortion rights. What about powerful and successful family women who have CHOSEN not to be liberal, or have CHOSEN not support Roe v. Wade? Don't they count??
Thus, given NOW's supposed purpose, I think it's absurd for them not to endorse the McCain/Palin ticket. I don't care if they're supposedly ugly, or unhappy people. Their stance simply goes against their own very legitimacy as an organization that promotes and supports ALL women. NOW might be full of unhappy people, but what's worse is that they don't make sense. They're wackos---and well, liberals.
Or perhaps they should call themselves...
September 21, 2008 - 06:30 ET by Prester John...COW--Crazy Organization of Women?
Then we can just say, there go the COWs again......
LOLA
September 21, 2008 - 08:55 ET by JerryLOLA - Liberal Organization of Lesbian Abortionists
They ARE Liberal
Their leaders ARE Lesbian
They ARE Organized
The ONLY thing they are concerned about is ABORTION
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
»→ Jerry
September 21, 2008 - 08:57 ET by Cool ArrowNot sure your typical Lesbian would be pregnant. (He said, tongue in cheek)
"Read my lips. I would not be anybody's Vice President" - Joe Biden 08/07
I dunno...
September 21, 2008 - 22:43 ET by Indiana Joeisn't that a new "right" in California or something? Some court somewhere, I think....
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Being pregnant is
September 22, 2008 - 10:27 ET by JasonCBeing pregnant is a "right" that must be granted now?
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Somewhere over
September 22, 2008 - 10:37 ET by mandrakeSomewhere over California
Some court gave them the right
to lesbians to be pregnant
Then why oh why can't I?
(hint: sung to the tune of Somewhere Over The Rainbow) :)
On account of lesbians
September 22, 2008 - 10:46 ET by JasonCOn account of lesbians actually having uteruses?
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
»→ Jason
September 22, 2008 - 10:51 ET by Cool ArrowNo, on account of lesbians don't have penes.
"Don't taze me bro" - Joe Biden
I think I'll leave this one
September 22, 2008 - 12:27 ET by JasonCI think I'll leave this one alone.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Hey Prester,would the COWS
September 21, 2008 - 08:59 ET by JerryHey Prester,would the COWS be sponsored by MOOOveon.org? To join that organization would be UDDER maddness.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
S.O.W.
September 21, 2008 - 09:04 ET by Cool ArrowHelp me out here.
"Read my lips. I would not be anybody's Vice President" - Joe Biden 08/07
Seriously Odd-looking
September 21, 2008 - 09:32 ET by JerrySeriously Odd-looking Women
Sinful Occultic Witches
Stinky Offensive Wart-hogs
Society of Obnoxious Woe-men
Watch out when NOW and COW and SOW get together... the Axis of Nagzis .... A triple SOW COW NOW.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
"...and what do we do with
September 21, 2008 - 10:56 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"...and what do we do with witches?"
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
Burn! Or build a bridge
September 21, 2008 - 10:58 ET by JerryBurn!
Or build a bridge out of 'er.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
"Ah, but can't you also
September 21, 2008 - 11:03 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"Ah, but can't you also build bridges out of stone?"
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
Who are you that are so
September 21, 2008 - 12:57 ET by JerryWho are you that are so wise in the ways of science? :-)
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Other organizations
September 21, 2008 - 10:19 ET by Prester JohnCrazy Old Liberal Dowagers (COLD)
United Girls for Lesbian Youth (UGLY)
National Union of Testosteronated Spinsters (NUTS)
and my personal favorite,
World Organization of Overweight Feminists (WOOF)
My turn
September 21, 2008 - 22:52 ET by Indiana JoeJust an Organization for Woman Liberals (JOWL)
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
I like LOW: Liberal Organization of Whores
September 21, 2008 - 15:32 ET by wdhorningI mean, do whores keep babies? The answer to that question tells you something about these liberals.
Jesus welcomed little children
September 21, 2008 - 15:31 ET by wdhorningPalin is not just a weak-minded feminist (like NOW), she is a humanist, in favor of rights for all, regardless of sex, men and women alike. This raises the ire of NOW.
Democrats:
Ann Nailed This One
September 21, 2008 - 00:04 ET by JoelCTAnn Coulter nailed the real business of NOW a long time ago when she said they do not care one bit about women except in forcing abortion as birth control on the entire nation. There is no other explanation for them loving Bill Clinton, an obvious "player" who used women like tissues to be tossed aside when he was done with them. But he backed them on abortion as birth control, so they were ready to don their "Presidential knee-pads" for him.
Ann also nailed the Democrat party's platform when she said that all they stand for is giving women "the right to have unprotected sex with men they don't like enough to have children with".
Yes it is all about
September 21, 2008 - 07:43 ET by kgYes it is all about abortion to NOW. Every election cycle they push abortion to the forefront. They candy coat it with "Choice" and "a procedure". They do not have the scruples to really call it and describe it for what it really is. All these years, decades, of moaning about abortion has really done what? They haven't lost the the opportunity (which they call a right) to abort their children. In fact they have pushed for more. I don't they would even quit the rhetoric if they could murder children up to one year of age.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
At least they have proven
September 21, 2008 - 13:20 ET by Clear thinkerAt least they have proven once and forever that they are NOT real women. If they were, they would be praising Gov. Palin. Real women don't kill their babies!
Democrats Energy Plan - Breaking News
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Mental contortionism. It's
September 21, 2008 - 00:06 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveMental contortionism. It's sad to see women think this way. It's scary that some women think that progress means being able to murder babies at the expense of the taxpayers.
Why does it not make sense (to them) to have the rape vicitm to pay for the police processing? How many alleged rapes are actually rapes? Does Duke ring any bells? How many more alleged rapes would there be if there were no consequence to frivolous reporting?
Maybe I'm just a heartless person.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
The first thing I think of
September 21, 2008 - 00:35 ET by USA4freedomThe first thing I think of is Rush’s line about NOW is around to give (well lets say.. not.. the.. most.. attractive.. women..).. jobs.
Whew... that proof that ugliness runs deeper then skin deep.
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
It's really hard to be
September 21, 2008 - 01:01 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIt's really hard to be beautiful when they try so hard to be ugly. If they tried to be beautiful, they would be beautiful...I've never met anyone so full of bitterness, hate, and envy that was either happy or beautiful.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
That reminds me of a line
September 21, 2008 - 09:20 ET by USA4freedomThat reminds me of a line that I stole from some one (maybe on this site) it goes:
Basically the left in this country is like a giant, blind lumbering ape, wandering aimlessly through the street, crapping on everything and trampling every thing beautiful in this nation.
The right is like the hapless zookeeper who follows this disgusting beast around tryingto clean up as much crap and fix as many things as we can before too much of a mess is made, unfortunately due to rampant stupidly, and self imposed brain damage practiced by the left and being imposed on our children by PC mongers, and public school systems, this is a losing battle. It’s our own fault for raising a nation of hyper sensitive little spoiled brat lefties who are completely functionally illiterate and worthless upon reaching he age of 18.
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Can't say I agree here. I
September 21, 2008 - 01:01 ET by RESTLESS 1Can't say I agree here. I don't see any reason to make reporting rape any harder. If one is found to have accused wrongly, then they should pay for all processing and court fees, and do some jail time to boot, but I don't agree with making them pay up front, if that is indeed what is happening.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I never said "up front"
September 21, 2008 - 01:05 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI never said "up front" neither did the person that was quoted. Although I don't know the veracity of the claims that woman was making and I don't know Palin's policy (maybe not even instituted by Palin) I would imagine it's like when you call for an ambulance...you get billed later.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
That's why I added the
September 21, 2008 - 01:16 ET by RESTLESS 1That's why I added the qualifier: "...if that is indeed what is happening".
I'm not sure what the policy is either, but I would hope that only those who bring charges falsely are being made to pay processing fees.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I wholeheartedly agree with
September 21, 2008 - 01:19 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI wholeheartedly agree with that.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
My understanding...
September 21, 2008 - 22:50 ET by Indiana JoeI heard this once, and haven't heard much about the topic since. Makes me kind of think this is the truth, and the MSM isn't interested in really getting it out there.
The "charging for rape kits" is an accounting procedure, whereby a victim's insurance company (if there is one) has to be billed for the procedure before the state is willing to pay for it. That's the short version I heard. And I think I heard it from Palin, but don't ask me where or when.
To me, it passes the "smell test" because I haven't really heard this angle pushed the way I think it would be if there was really anything to it. The "paying for rape-kits" angle, I mean. They're just letting it dangle out there and ferment. The way the MSM treat all the lies they push.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
That would make sense I.J.
September 21, 2008 - 23:05 ET by RESTLESS 1I can't believe that anyone would make a rape victim pay for processing if the charge is genuine; unless, of course, they are accusing bill clinton.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
NOW is becoming a bit of a bore...
September 21, 2008 - 00:53 ET by ImAllRightWhat a shocker! - They endorsed Obama. I find it even funnier that the MSM likes to prop these women up as non-partisan in their organization. I'm all for equality of women, but these women represent about a half of women in this country if that. I rarely see a conservative voice come out of this group and I believe that they've decided to be the organization of left thinking women.
Governor Palin is a fine woman, who though not yet fully educated on all the issues, will make a great VP. She is very smart with her words and already overshadows the man at the top of the ticket, without her Obama would have a 10-12 point lead in my opinion, instead of clinging to the 3-4 point lead he currently holds with the debates to be a major factor.
When a woman's organiztion other than NOW endorses the McCain/Palin ticket I hope it gets the recognition that it deserves. I wouldn't count on it though.
Nice post Noel.
Palin/Jindal 2012!
"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man." - Ronald Reagan.
How come lesbians are always
September 21, 2008 - 02:54 ET by FairlightHow come lesbians are always missing the top portion of their lips? I find it a fascinating trait. It's not just the scarcity of lipstick, either. It's literally the butch-er you are, the smaller your upper lip is.
GREAT DAY ALIVE!
September 21, 2008 - 06:32 ET by sentforth5Who was that second guy in the blue? That hurt my eyes first thing Sunday mornin'!
Seriously..it is getting more and more difficult for the sober minded Christian to witness satan parading around day after day during this election cycle. It's all right, though...I read the Book and WE WILL WIN IN THE END!
You'd like to think it's this bad...
September 21, 2008 - 07:07 ET by cjbreischYou'd like to think it's this bad.
But it's not. It's worse.
As the Washington Post reported
And:
As they say, read the whole thing.
National Organization of Some Women
September 21, 2008 - 07:17 ET by Red JeepFor all its media power NOW’s membership is miniscule. According to Wikipedia NOW has 500,000 members or less than two tenths of 1% of the country. Must be a lot of women in this country have the good sense not to join this bunch of…
Hold on there 4wheeler, Trust but verify.
September 21, 2008 - 13:10 ET by RackieAnd you believe the Wiki? I'd (if I cared) check the numbers for over inflation.
JACKPOT
September 21, 2008 - 07:24 ET by sawing battaHilariously sad for women. Their keystone organization turns its back on.....a woman.
we all knew this is how they'd come out (so to speak), but think of how upset they were when the Palin announcement was made....it was a giant spotlight on their hipocrisy.
I'll have what she's not having!
September 21, 2008 - 08:10 ET by CrashSupport the ERA amendment for all women ... except those who are for family, pro life, know how to handle firearms, who are successful, and don't smell like wild animals, hippies, or look like frumps or bull dykes.
PDS is showing up...
September 21, 2008 - 09:44 ET by Dan LaHoodjust about everywhere, Peter Travers interviewing Ed Harris this AM on ABC Now about Harris' new Western, which concerns a tough Marshall who sort of makes up laws as he goes along. Travers says"Oh yeah just like Sarah Palin". Harris responds. "Oh you mean that soon to be small footnote in history, moose-hunting history that is or so we hope". The Left is losing their collective "mind" and we have SP to thank for it. They're scared and it's fun to watch.
Anyone who has ever heard Santayana's famous quote about History repeating itself is condemned to repeat it.
Sexist women?
September 21, 2008 - 10:37 ET by wiwfSexist women? Whodathunkit?!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
as well
September 21, 2008 - 13:06 ET by mom_roxa woman can be sexist and a minority can be racist.
What's the difference between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin?
One is eye candy while the other kills her own food.
Oh Barry me on the lone prairie (please)
September 21, 2008 - 13:05 ET by RackieOh great! Now that Obama has the backing of our Naked Old Women, death row inmates, socialists, fascists, baby killers, communists, lap dancers, layabouts, pornographers, pacifists, peddlers of everything vile and all the barely sentient sluts and mutts of every stripe, he is just a tap dance away from the Oval Office.
Time to rethink my survival plan.
Now
September 21, 2008 - 16:28 ET by I.am.DILLIGAFNow should stand for Nasty Old Witches They are the one out of touch with reallity. I hope they fall flat on there kiesters.
Guns and Violence are not the answer but they are one solution to the problem== SARG
NOW has lost their credibility
September 21, 2008 - 18:56 ET by Cho Yi Fan"National Organization for Women on Tuesday endorsed Barack Obama for President".
So with this move-unless Obama is somehow a woman-the NOW gals have lost all of their credibility as an organization that strives for the upward mobility and advancement of women. There is a woman running for the second highest office in the land and instead of voices being raised in praise and triumph, the NOW gals have decided to trash her. So now in additions to most of NOWs members having the personality of a trash compactor they are quite simply hypocrits with respsect to everything that they claim to stand for.
How can they ever show their faces in public again and talk about looking out for every womans best interest with any credibility.Its a tainted claim that they are about the advancement of women? Unless you are a sucessful liberal woman NOW simply doesnt recognize your achievement..
Their New name should be
NOLDWO
National Organization of Liberal Democratic Women for Obama
"A man may be killed but never humiliated."-Shaolin proverb
And the beat goes on
September 21, 2008 - 23:09 ET by Indiana JoeYou mean... NOW isn't about "empowering all women?" Really? REALLY?
All the "grassroots" liberal organizations are shedding their skin this cycle. The masks are off, folks, and it's obvious to everyone that these sorts of groups never represented "the people." They're all agenda-driven arms of the liberal establishment, concerned with gaining power, period. They're not "non-partisan," not sincere, and certainly not what they've painted themselves as being.
This just keeps getting better and better, as the lemmings march to the sea in frustration and confusion.
<edit> I just informed my 75 year-old mother about this. She's about the most politically-apathetic person you can imagine. Her response? "You're kidding!" Imagine that happening across the country! And she's going to vote this time, for the first time in years!
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
"But, we wish it was a
September 22, 2008 - 00:08 ET by GrannyGrump42"But, we wish it was a ticket that stood for women and women's rights."
Palin DOES stand for women and women's rights. She just doesn't buy into the slander that being a woman means you prefer your children in pieces shipped off to the pathology lab.
Earth to NOW: Not all of us eat our young.
I know why the National Organization for Women
September 22, 2008 - 13:20 ET by Teddyendorsed Barack Obama for President.
It's because Deborah Frett looks more like the dude that played noseguard on my (83') H.S. football team, than she does a chick.
Kim Gandy and NOW are
September 22, 2008 - 13:26 ET by bigtimerKim Gandy and NOW are irrelevant.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
I am not particularly fond
September 22, 2008 - 17:15 ET by JasonCI am not particularly fond of NOW's politics, but this seems like an open and shut case. Their political interest lies in helping to elect a candidate who will be sympathetic to their ideologies. To say they are hypocritical for not endorsing Sarah Palin is silly; to endorse Sarah Palin merely because she has an X and Y chromosome, in spite of her myriad stances which are at odds with NOW, would be an extremely superficial move. And perhaps you, for good reason, believe that NOW is nothing if not superficial. And, judging from the comments on this board, it's also widely assumed that NOW is composed of lesbians. But nonetheless, the group would obviously back any candidate who would best suit their interests, just like any other PAC or lobbyist organization. Looking at it strictly from the angle of identity politics and the candidate qua candidate, exactly how many women as a whole would be "advanced" by having Sarah Palin as veep? Basically, one.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Jason the frustrated nags
September 22, 2008 - 17:25 ET by bigtimerJason the frustrated nags of NOW are really irrelevant and insignificant...
...they have no real power...just the talking bobble-heads in the msm are all they really have left.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Apparently they have the
September 22, 2008 - 17:33 ET by JasonCApparently they have the power to infuriate traditionalist conservatives and to influence certain, albeit perhaps marginal voting blocs. But overall, I agree, they are probably not worth much consideration and certainly haven't the ability to swing an election.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....