Obama throws Democratic Women under the bus…again…
January 8, 2009
by Amy Siskind
|Well, thank goodness that NARAL made that early endorsement of then Sen. Barack Obama in the primary when he was running against Sen. Hillary Clinton. Looks like the chickens are coming home to roost (that didn’t take long now did it).
Today, President-elect Obama selected Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to be the next DNC Chairman. Yet again, Obama managed to glance over all the qualified women for this position (let’s recall that the Democratic Party just had 18 million vote for a woman).
Here’s a quick brush up on Kaine’s view on choice:
Promote abstinence; ban partial-birth abortion
I will reduce abortion in Virginia by enforcing current Virginia restrictions, passing an enforceable ban on partial-birth abortion, ensuring women’s access to health care (including legal contraception), and promoting abstinence-focused education and adoption. We should reduce abortion in this manner, rather than by criminalizing women and doctors.I have a faith-based opposition to abortion. As governor, I will work in good faith to reduce abortions by:
- Enforcing the current Virginia restrictions on abortion and passing an enforceable ban on partial birth abortion that protects the life and health of the mother;
- Fighting teen pregnancy through abstinence-focused education;
- Ensuring women’s access to health care (including legal contraception) and economic opportunity; and
- Promoting adoption as an alternative for women facing unwanted pregnancies.
Source: Campaign website www.kaine2005.org, “Issues” Nov 8, 2005
So, let’s see, since the election, as payback for their votes, Obama has given the women of this country the following:
- Larry Summers – girls have inferior aptitude in mathematics and science;
- John Favreau – ah c’mon, groping her was all in good fun;
- Cabinet Selections – send us backwards a couple of decades;
- Rick Warren – enemy to women and the LGBT community, amongst others;
Hmmm…sensing a pattern here? Shall I continue?
Suffice it to say, we are now eternally grateful to have started The New Agenda as a big tent women’s rights group. Gals – if you thought the DNC had your back – think again. The way for the women of this country to have power is for us all to stick together. We can no longer be divided by political party or view on choice.
These positions are further right than Palin’s. She opposes abstinence-only, wants sex education in schools to teach about condoms for those children who may not learn about them at home.
I’m confused. I thought TNA wasn’t dealing with abortion because it is a divisive issue and it’s one of the things that’s unique about this org. If so, why this thread focusing on Kaine and his views on abortion?
it’s not taking a stand on abortion——it’s just one more example of dissembling when it comes to women. There is a difference. The focus of Amy’s piece is just one more chapter and verse in the misogyny saga that continues to be written. Looks to me like it’s going to be a multi-volumed affair!!
This is yet another *blatant* example in short period of time in President-elect Obama’s complete and utter disregard for women.
As relates to the DNC, he picks the head. He could have picked – imagine this – a “woman” given that 18 million democrats voted for a woman.
Cynthia –
1. I realize it’s not blatantly taking a stand, but there is a subtext, at least the way I interpret it. As a result, I think it sends a mixed message from an org trying to distinguish itself by being hands off re: abortion, among other things.
2. Love your last comment!
General comment – I think Obama and his team are strategizing how to continue to make inroads with evangelicals. They certainly captured a lot of votes there and I would imagine they’re looking ahead to mid-term elections and 2012 and hope to continue to eat into the Republican base. However, without George Bush as their convenient punching bag to blame, and without a Republican presidential candidate that many Republicans couldn’t get behind, it may not be as easy as it was this year to make headway with voters who traditionally vote Republican.
This was a selection to head the DNC Anna – not for a national office – that is the difference. The DNC has, amongst it’s traditional platform issues, included pro choice. The New Agenda is NOT taking a stand on choice or party – thank goodness. We are noting here that Obama has a pattern of selecting folks that do not value women (DNC – Democrats, National Office – all women).
Amy
I completely agree that Obama could have picked a woman to be the DNC Chair. And, I wish he had.
I think stating that he has a “complete and utter disregard for women” is a provocative overstatement.
I love this organization because it doesn’t appear to indulge in this way of framing things. I hope the discourse won’t devolve into a way of expressing ideas that has been perfected on other sites.
Amy – Your post at 9:45pm makes no sense to me. You’ve noted a traditional platform issue for the DNC as being pro-choice. You’ve reitterated TNA’s commitment not to address abortion/choice. Then you’ve noted that Obama tends to choose people who don’t value women. What’s the connection between these issues? The way you’re laying out the argument it sounds like you’re suggesting that because his DNC pick is not clearly pro-choice, it follows that it’s a pick that devalues women. But if we’re steering clear of choice issues, the way you’ve connected the dots makes not sense, at least to me. To say we take issue because once again, Obama had an opportunity to pick a woman for a particular leadership role, then great. I get it. But the logic you’ve put forth and the TNA’s vision re: abortion just don’t come together for me. Sorry. Perhaps I’m missing something…
I am surprised that a woman was not picked to head the DNC since then they would have a woman to blame for every dumb idea of theirs that didn’t work.
National office – your constituency – all women and men of the country.
DNC Chair – your constituency – democratic voters. More women than men (10%+). Amongst those women, overwhelming majority are pro-choice and many vote around this sole issue.
Hence, not only ignoring the majority, but ALSO ignoring the majority major rationale for voting with that party.
= pattern.
This pick is confusing on many levels.
For the reason mentioned in this post & what about the fact “He already has a Job”!!
Please…. there’s NO ONE ELSE in the democratic party that can do this job “RIGHT NOW”!!
BTW a bit off topic:
I heard that Gov. Paterson will be a guest on a NY AM news show.
They will discuss many topics, including Senator Clinton’s replacement.
I took the liberty of writing a question in the comments section for him.
Anyone care to join me it’s:
http://www.myfoxny.com/goodday
I think perhaps the operative issue is that groups who are part of the women’s issues community gave away their clout by endorsing early, when they should have held out and bargained for a better “position.”
Instead they demonstrated that they will tolerate without complaint Democrats who aren’t 100% on their side – basically inviting the current crop of Democratic pols to walk all over them. And lo and behold, that’s what they’re doing.
I think certain groups thought that if they overlooked some problematic signals and endorsed early, they would be treated like an important constituency and would be rewarded post-election. Some of us warned that instead of being more valued for giving certain matters a “pass,” the groups would be less valued because they were showing that they wouldn’t – or couldn’t – fight for their own interests. The groups demonstrated that there is no price to pay for abandoning their principles. And that weakens the bargaining position of all of us.
at best they are paper tigers.
I think the choice of Kaine to lead the DNC demonstrates the wisdom of the latter position.
Thank you Nina. A very eloquently typed response to what I wrote about less than eloquently above.
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free :- )
Anna, I understand your frustration, as I went through the same feelings when the teamsarah group started coming out very strongly with a pro-life agenda. I don’t think there is any way around it- abortion is going to be discussed and there will always be those of us on opposing sides.
What I think imo the difference is here, is that Amy is talking about all those women who chose to support Obama over McCain/Palin BECAUSE of his pro-choice stance, and now it is proving to be a less than stellar move.
BTW:
This works better “if” anyone is interested:
http://www.myfoxny.com
Click on
Good Day
Contact us
Thanks again
“…overwhelming majority are pro-choice and many vote around this sole issue.”
“…ignoring the majority major rationale for voting with that party.”
Numbers, please.
Also, if we’re non-partisan, why are we being concerned with the DNC and whether or not we think Obama did or did not weaken or abandon a platform issue?
Nina – Yes, I agree. Waaaaaay too many women and women’s orgs gave away any bargaining power by handing their votes on a silver platter. (I believe many Dem women who switched to McCain made the same error.). Lynette was certainly one who did NOT do that, meeting with members of Obama’s team and asking outright if they would commit to a Cabinet that had a minimum of 10 women. When they said no, they lost her support. If only more women had thought, strategized, negotiated and voted this way.
But here we are and we gotta move forward.
Lisa
I think we were typing at the same time. Per your post, yes I get that. But if TNA is steering clear of abortion and partisan politics, then let’s do it. Leave it to other orgs or women to speak out on that matter if they feel thrown under the bus, as it were. If that’s not going to be part of our thing, why get distracted by it?
tpt//ny,
I must say that from what I know so far of Gov. Paterson, I do think highly of him. He recently spoke at the Fall Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee luncheon and he was terrific. He is an outspoken advocate for women. I hope, hope, hope that he picks a woman to take Hillary’s seat. It would truly be a shame to go backwards from 17% to 16%.
Anna,
I’m okay with the discussion of choice in this context because they are pointing out the disregard for what the Democratic party specifically has promised women. It’s kind of like when we were discussing who would take Hillary’s Senate seat and someone pointed out that there were no Republicans on the list. Well of course not, that would be a ridiculous point to argue. New York elected a Democrat and they should get one. The Democratic Party promised women a pro-choice platform and they should get one.
Lisa-
I have the same problem at TeamSarah. It’s exhausting to try to work around it.
“Amy”
I agree with your assessment of the Governor, plus he was a strong Clinton supporter.
One of my writings to him included that it was his background experience that helped him to help the State of NY AVOID a disaster in March.
I’d like to share my take on “non-partisan” – it means we don’t favor one party over the other, our issues come first. But it doesn’t mean we can’t criticize or praise a party (more likely criticize, the way things are going) when they say/ do some thing relevant to our issues.
For example, the Planned Parenthood PAC is non-partisan -in the past they have endorsed and contributed to Democrats and Republicans. It makes more sense to say non-partisan than bi-partisan, since bi-partisan implies you’ll only support two parties, and in theory the party affiliation doesn’t matter – the stance on the issues does.
I agree with Anna. Cherry-picking Kaine’s abortion position as a time to suddenly be concerned about choice issues, when TNA has claimed not to be concerned with this issue, is totally inconsistent.
However, what I think it shows is that you can’t separate the choice issue out from women’s issues. It’s a vital issue. Tyranny over reproductive choice has been one of the key ways, if not THE key way, that women have had their freedom curtailed throughout history.
I think Amy’s post reveals that it’s somewhat unrealistic to say we are feminists who will ignore choice. She couldn’t even stick to that promise for six months. It’s her sole line of attack on Kaine in this article. And he’s far from a hard pro-lifer. He’s being hit here for being so-called “centrist” on choice.
How can we blast Kaine for these views, while saying we’d support Palin, despite the fact that she is totally pro-life.
Palin has said she’d oppose an abortion even if her daughter was raped:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....22924.html
So again, how do we justify supporting her when we criticize Kaine for his much milder views on the subject?
I think intellectual consistency is extremely important!
Nancy do you really think we’d let you get away with citing a news source, and a very highly biased one at that?
“Palin has said she’d oppose an abortion even if her daughter was raped:”
What you mean is, Huffington Post says Palin said that. Now, go find what Palin said, and the question she’s responding to. I know what she said, and where to find it, but this is your assignment. Until then:
Journalism 101: Nancy Byrne. Fail.
Sis,
Palin said that in the instance her daughter was raped “I would choose life.” She also said that it would be her daughter’s decision, and she would love and support her whatever she decided.
Palin is staunchly Pro-Life, with the exception of the life of the mother. There’s no way around that, no matter how many sources you check, or how many quote wordings you nit-pick, and that was my point. Do you refute it?
Journalism 201: But I won’t sink to giving you an assignment or a grade.
The point is that establishment feminists have sold themselves to the Democrats in exchange for Roe v. Wade, and it’s a one-sided deal.
Democrats have been holding abortion over feminists’ heads for decades now. No matter how much the Democrats ignored women’s concerns, no matter how much they betrayed feminist ideals, it was okay because BOO! Roe v. Wade!
The Democrats haven’t even been particularly vigilant on choice, allowing both John Roberts and Samuel Alito to be confirmed, allowing anti-abortion laws to be passed, and generally failing to hold the line. They’ve been taking women’s votes for granted.
That was one reason The New Agenda opted to remove choice from its agenda: not because we don’t think it matters to women, but because we’re tired of being held hostage by one party over a single issue.
With the selection of Tim Kaine, Obama is just showing again that he takes women for granted. Women vote Democratic because of choice, but the Democrats aren’t returning the favor.
Violet,
It’s very possible to keep Choice as a vital issue, and still not be totally hostage to one party. There are Pro-Choice Republicans. Arnold Schwarzenegger is one, for example. One can say that you’re voting pro-choice, but if both candidates favor choice, you’ll look at other issues.
This would encourage the GOP to start putting up pro-choice candidates, which would further free women from being stuck with one party.
But if we say we’ll ignore the choice issue as long as it’s a woman candidate, we’re letting our long-term freedom be bought off with cheap, easy, and cynical symbolism. Which will be exploited.
I say hold the line on the issue and force the GOP to truly compete for OUR votes on OUR terms. We don’t have to capitulate!
I believe you may misunderstand The New Agenda’s stance. We aren’t capitulating on choice. We’re just not making it part of our platform.
The New Agenda is to some extent an attempt at a new alignment of women. Think of it this way: NARAL is about choice, and so they’re not going to take up, say, Title IX. It’s not that the individual members of NARAL don’t care about Title IX, and it’s not that NARAL is saying Title IX doesn’t belong anywhere on the feminist agenda. They’re just saying that their organization is about choice, and so the coalition they’re going to put together is of people who can work together on choice — regardless of what those people think about Title IX (or anything else).
The New Agenda is building a new coalition of women who may disagree about choice, but do agree about a whole bunch of other things: Fair Pay, Title IX, domestic violence, etc., etc., etc. There’s a strong political coalition to be formed there among both liberal and conservative women, and we’re forming it. We’re not saying choice is unimportant or isn’t a feminist issue. We’re just going after a bunch of other goals.
It’s like if I’m trying to build a coalition of people in my neighborhood to vote down the new speed bump. As long as they’re with me on the speed bump, we’re in business. And their votes are valuable. I don’t need to interrogate them about choice, or say that “unless you agree with me on choice, I don’t want your vote on the speed bump.”
I agree that endorsing too early is giving away the milk for free. If swing voters leave themselves no room to swing, then they can have no impact.
Nancy, you’ve said that bashing Obama drives away Obama supporters. Well, bashing Palin drives away Palin supporters. And bashing Pumas drives away Pumas.
I agree with those above who say the speedbump committee should keep their eye on the speedbump.
I am not impressed by Obama’s pick which places more emphasis on his replacement Commerce Secretary pick.
My take on Obama so far, is that he has chosen a number of qualified women for posts and appointments but a lot less than I expected. I am disappointed. He really hasn’t made any breakthroughs for women yet – other than Homeland Security – and may be the Chief Performance Officer – where women appear to be in positions they have never been in before.
On the other hand, I think the Obama Women’s Agenda http://change.gov/agenda/women_agenda/ looks impressive. I think he should somehow be pressured to detail who will be accountable for how that agenda will be implemented.
I try not to get too focused on the Palin and HRC “cult of personality” because I believe these two women are politicians first, women second. I think they profess women’s issues when it suits their personal political agenda.
Kevin,
Are there other female politicians that you think are better?
I often speak of ‘Hillary or Palin’ but it is not the sort of regard usually meant by ‘personality cult.’ I don’t think their election would be the moment the oceans start to recede or heal holes in our souls. I do think their sort of personality deserves support: tough, playing hardball with the boys, and joyful about it.
Kevin your “politicians first women second” sounds like a variation of this. I’m surprised you’d think like that. Then again… .
BILL MOYERS: And you can’t use your uterus and your brain. That’s the old argument, right? You can’t be caring and tough. That’s the old argument against women, right?
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/jour.....ript1.html
I want you to show her saying what you’ve said Nancy. What you’re doing is putting words in her mouth. Let’s see it. What did she actually say? I submit it’s not what you’ve said. I submit what you’re saying is your opinion, not hers.
I submit what you’re saying is *your opinion of what she’s said*. Not her opinion.
I submit that you’re extrapolating to suit your agenda.
Sis,
Here are two links to a VIDEO CLIP of Sarah Palin answering this question about abortion. Watch it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxoM2szS8H0
I submit you were wrong.
I was accurate, except in this debate she was even less flexible than I depicted her as being. The thing about supporting her daughter was from another interview. She is very staunchly Pro-Life, as I said.
I am wondering if you will be honest enough to acknowledge that you didn’t know what you were talking about?
Journalism 301: You’re still not passing!
I think this post has highlighted just how careful TNA has to be when discussing women’s fertility issues. Amy’s original post lacked clarity as I, too, read it and didn’t make the connection (but which she later explained in her replys).
I thought she was trying to make the point that Kaine’s views were unacceptable to women as a whole, but there are many pro-choice and pro-life women of TNA that would not find his views bad. The wider point; that the Obama’s Dem Party is moving to the right at the expense of many female pro-choice voters is very valid, though.
If the TNA wants to highlight the Pro-choice concerns of Leftist Democratic women, then it must make clear that those women’s concerns are not necessarily shared by all TNA’s members (despite what the leaders of TNA personally believe). I felt that Amy’s post made it too obvious that she personally disagreed with Kaine’s views.
Is there a Rep woman in the leadership team at TNA? I would like a post explaining any sexist appointments the Rep party might be doing now, so that Republican members don’t get bored with talking about the Dem party all the time.
Saint Amy- you are doing a wonderful job though!
Anna, you are missing something here. In dealing with the Chicago, gutter style politics that gave us Obama, you go at them from any opening, any seam possible. This isn’t a parlor game of high morals and purist ideology and feel-good intelligence made manifest, it is a matter of emotional, political and economic survival of women. That is what is at stake here. When the WOMAN Secretary of State of the United States has a card board cut-out of her groped by the President’s MALE speech writer and this is made Public and there are no repercussions and no collective outrage, it is a time to be very scared and a time to fight, it is a time of high tech witch burning that can easily get worse.
fsteele and Sis,
I think Palin and HRC were victims of sexism on the campaign trail. In some ways, they remind of my wife hat she works in manufacturing, always has to put up with the good “old boy network” and I nearly had to curse one of her bosses out for consulting with me before he promoted her. He wanted to know if she wanted to start a family. My wife has also been the victim of sexist jokes and called a “bi…” because she is tough as nails, smart and doesn’t take crap.
However, my wife doesn’t choose her spots to yell “sexism.’ At one point, Palin tells women they need to get over sexism, the next minute she yells sexism and the next minute she is bad mouthing Kennedy. At least I give HRC credit for never jumping on the bandwagon and being the attack dog versus Palin.
I admire a lot about Palin and HRC but they both appear to be a little “too political” for my tastes. And I can’t explain it. It is just something I feel.
Hello Everyone,
I am new here, and i just wanted to respond to a post I saw from Kevin regarding Sarah Palin.
I don’t recall Palin saying anything about sexism herself. She tried really hard not to talk about it, because of what she had said earlier when talking about sexism and HRC. And I think, based on her interviews after the campaign, that she really respects HRC, she just personally, doesn’t think that crying sexism is going to get women ahead, because they need to be perceived as strong. The McCain campaign did scream sexism, but she didn’t run that campaign, and as we now know, she seemed to have conflicts with the campaign managers.
And regarding Kennedy, from the John Ziegler interview, she said she was insterested to see how Kennedy was treated because she thought there was a class issue at play, and I think she is right. I am curious, where exactly did you hear her bad mouth kennedy? She only pointed what is obvious about the coverage from her to Kennedy.
Kevin, both Hillary and Sarah are professional politicians so I’m not sure how they could be ” a little too political”. So much talent and capability is being gender oppressed and I wish Sarah and Hillary would have both strongly attacked the mysogyny that came their way, gone right for the jugular from the get-go. After that groping incident, I wish Hillary would have called Obama and told him to ‘”have that little bastar* make a public apology to me then you issue a statement that you will not tolerate such conduct in your Administration and fire him’ or I will call a press conference and reject being your SOS for your disdain of me as a woman and remain a US Senator” . Women always punch above the belt when they are being kicked below the belt – why is that?
I agree Kaine’s position is dissembling. I also agree it’s unlikely he was thinking of women when he wrote it. yet I don’t agree Democratic women who voted Obama and NARAL have been thrown under the bus. Kaine’s a Roman Catholic, and to me it looks like he’s carefully framed his pro-choice position (and it is a pro-choice position) in a way that maintains him in good standing with his church.
the wording is carefully chosen and to be honest, I personally think it’s smart. he says he won’t reduce abortions by criminalizing women and doctors instead of using language that would equate to pushing his church’s hot buttons. I’m not saying his archbishop would be fooled into thinking Kaine isn’t pro-choice politically, but he’d see that Kaine holds himself to standards consistent with the church, and probably appreciates that he’s not putting their difference of opinion on common law into language the church would have to interpret as a poke in the eye. the church probably doesn’t like having public confrontations with its prominent members any more than the members do.
he also chooses his emphasis carefully, for example framing his sex education proposal for schools as “abstinence focused”. that’s not an “abstinence only” position. it’s open to include education on birth control, protecting sex against STDS, etc. he’s just not advertising those elements to the archbishop of his diocese. again, avoiding the eye-poke.
imo with this position paper Kaine shows why he’s probably avoided becoming one of the pro choice Catholic pols to be publicly rebuked by his church. it’s political savvy, true, but I’m impressed that he even seems to avoid the appearance of disingenuousness, and thinking that could even be because he’s not…LOL.
I’m pro-choice, and don’t have a problem with pro-choice pols who want to maintain good standing with their faith. some of them have a tough enough time with that, plus, to me it seems like his position covers the pro-choice territory for women, even if he wasn’t completely concentrated on their interests when he put those words together.
This article has nothing to do with choice, it’s about hypocrisy. Obama is allegedly a liberal and a Democrat and he implied that he would be an advocate for those issues. Since winning the election he has done the opposite, from his invite to Rick Warren to his appointment of Kaine.
Kaine is not an advocate for choice or for gay equality. But he’s worse than that, he states that he is personally opposed to these two issues, but also offers to somewhat compromise his beliefs on the surface out of party loyalty. Kaine is the ultimate hypocrite, he panders to voters on these issues, trying to appeal to these groups, when he fact his personal intentions are to do the exact opposite.
Goesh,
I actually like that Sarah didn’t envoke the sexism line. I was a little dissapointed when Hillary did. I believe in a free society, and in a free society, people should be allowed to say what they think. When you have to be PC correct about everything, then what we are being told is that minority groups (blacks, women, latinos) are weak and they can’t take criticism or potshots. Remember you have a right to be offended, but I still have a right to say it.
Whites get criticized all day. They take potshots all day and no one seems to get offended or say anything about it. Bush gets made fun of all the time, and so does Cheney, and I am not talking about their governing abilities, but how they look etc. Even McCain and Biden were made fun of and nobody seemed to care. Why? Are we saying that the only people that can take crass potshots are white men, but women, latinos and blacks can’t take it.
People were insulted by Tina Fey’s comedy routine of Palin, and called it sexist. But I wonder, was the same true when Will Ferrel played Bush on SNL or how about Bill Clinton jokes on SNL. I heard no complains then.
Now mind you I do think there was sexism (although the relationship Palin has with the media is more of a class issue). But what I think was more prominent, was lack of journalism. Which is more of a problem in the media.
Bottom line, I believe in free speech, and I believe than in a free society, we have a right to say what we think, even if it offends someone else. What should be more upsetting, I think, is not the media’s sexism, but the fact that the media outlets did no reporting whatsoever. They focused more on personality than issues, and it worked. That is sad.
I agree that Kaine is a step backwards. What I don’t understand is how he even got the job. Besides being Obama’s buddy what exactly qualifies him to fill this position. And why is it now, that all of a sudden the position will be filled part-time by Kaine, as suppose to full time.
This whole thing doesn’t make any sense.
My points regarding Palin where that at first she spoke poorly regarding HRC claiming sexism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Y8FKAsxmk. And then she claimed the focus on the money spent on her clothes was sexist.
So to me, when it suited Palin, she both criticized HRC for claiming sexism and then claimed sexism herself when the clothes issue arose. Now, to criticize Kennedy, it is class-warfare she is suggesting.
As I mentioned in my email, other than Palin being a female, I simply do not she her as an advocate of female rights. Palin’s record on race and diversity has been parse, almost exclusively focused on her views on gay rights, same-sex marriage and equal pay. These are crucial civil rights issues. But so are racial diversity and civil rights. She really has made no mention of affirmative action, job discrimination, and the enforcement of civil rights laws.
Palin probably, by her own record, would not support the TNA’s call for parity in Obama’s Cabinet because it is a form of affirmative action.
Given the soon to be president’s method of dealing with women, I am suprised that any one is suprised about the appointment of Gov Kaine. One of my friends remarked in 2004 that a woman who voted for Bush would get exactly what she deserved, nothing. I feel the same way about Obama. He very cynically played the race card because he knows that racism is considered unacceptable, but everyone has been taught to hate women, including other women. By dismissing and dehumanizing women, he was signalling to the other members of the boys club he was one of them and not an outsider. I believe that his adminstration will gradually lose the few women that it has because of the hostile environment. If Obama minions labor under the delusion that they are Camelot redux, they will probably adopt the dopey 60’s view of women and their place. What scares me is that younger women who have no sense of history because of our flawed education systm will be complict in their own abuse.
I think the only hope that women have in our perilous times is to leave the established political parties. If we can not be relied on for our votes, we will become a valuable asset. They will have to court us and not take us for granted.
AnneE,
I disagree that Obama plays the race card; provide a time when he did. His campaign was based on not playing the race card.
However, with respect to women appointments, he has been a terrible disappointment.
Kevin, if you accept the words and actions of Barack Obama as being both synonymous and interchangeable with the words and actions of his campaign and campaign manager, namely David Axlerod, I’ve got a two word answer to your request for a time he played the race card:
Geraldine Ferraro.
Kevin,
We don’t know what Palin has said about other issues, because the media has not told us. When they interview her, they focus on sex-related issues. They also edit their interviews, so even if she volunteered statements on other issues the media might not report them.
Do you know of a site where we could find everything Palin has said, on all issues?
I do think the focus on Palin’s clothes and makeup was sexist, as we were not told the cost of the men’s clothes and makeup. It was also unfair as we were not told the cost of Mrs. Obama’s, Mrs. Biden’s, or Mrs. McCain’s clothes and makeup.
I can’t play your tape right now, but it’s hard to make a statement that can’t be taken out of context. Even if Palin did change her mind about sexism when she was hit with more extreme examples of it, that’s just human, not a reason to dismiss her.
Palin’s pro-women statements have been shorter and simpler and not widely quoted. Her greatest advocacy I’ve seen has been her own behavior as a role model, and her destruction of the glass ceiling in Alaska. Doing that job with a nursing baby in the executive office or with her house-husband, is a stronger message than any spoken statement.
As for parity being affirmative action/quota — several of us on this blog oppose it on those grounds, including me (though I think there’s some room for gender voting ‘when possible, other things being equal’).
Kevin,
I just read through the Obama agenda on women and it sounds fairly good, but I think the point is that words are cheep and actions are much more important. His actions and deeds so far are not so great.
For me, I came to the new agenda after hearing Cynthia R. on TV calling out the sexist TREATMENT of Clinton, and subsequently Palin. I believe that embracing equal treatment is one of the cornerstones to real advancement. As long as women aren’t treated fairly, with equal respect and with equal treatment, we will continue to be hampered.
What we continue to see is that democratic polititions pay lip service to women’s rights, but actually don’t followup with actions. Our issues are always shoved to the side and put on a back burner after elections are over. This shows the lack of respect and commitment that so many of us are frustrated about. This election and how the democrats have demonized both Clinton and Palin in sexist ways has also exposed the democratic party’s failure to embrace equal treatment of women.
Another example, is when Biden presided over the confermation hearings of Clarence Thomas. He declined to hear other witnesses regarding Thomas’s history of sexual harrassment. He only focused Anita Hill and didn’t listen to others who could substabtiate Thomas’s pattern of sexist behavior. Thomas was subsequantly confirmed and has reeked havoc on the equal treatment laws of women in employment situations ever since.
This is the crap that leaves us feeling unconvinced that the male democratic polititions prioritizes women’s issues. In meny cases we find more common ground with moderate Republican women.
There is now an Anna (me), and AnnainAK, an Ana, and an AnneE on this blog. I don’t know if this is justt a coincidence or someone’s messing things up or a mixture of both, but is surely makes things complicated.
Anyway, two final comments on this topic:
goesh – I don’t think I’m missing anything here. If you had any notion of the degree of political activism I was engaged in this year, you would know.
Sis and others, perhaps – I believe that Palin is clearly anti-abortion. It was this value that helped to galvanize much of the Republican base who were less than enthused about McCain.
On a seperate topic:
Some good news from the House regarding the Lily Ledbetter legislation and I think if you read the article, it highlights (among other things) that voting for women based solely on gender and nothing else can work against our interests:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....pay_equity
Kevin, I don’t recall Palin saying the coverage of her clothes was sexist. Even in the interview she just did with Ziegler, she didn’t point out whether she thought the media was sexist or clasist. She pointed it more as a question.
As for the clothes thing, she defended herself, but she never said, hey stop talking about it, its sexist. Nor did she say what HRC said, which was a response to a question, that the coverage of her, she thought was sexist.
Furthermore, if you want to know what Palin has done, you can go to the Wassila page or the governor’s page, and check out her record.
Nobody here, or anywhere should expect at this point the bias media to tell you about her.
I may have missed the posting giving it, in case anyone wants to see the Palin interview please go to bighollywood.breitbart.com.
for those who want to know more about a grass roots group dedicated to Palin go to
teamsarah.org
AnneE, i must disagree, as important racial issues and the other items you mentioned are- they are liberal conservative issues not gender issues…what in my view, unites this group is a strong emphasis on women’s rights issues without getting involved in those other divisive issues.
kevin, sure he played the card, attack Wright, you are a racist, attack his lack of qualifications, you are a racist, community organizer means black they said, so calling him that makes you a racist, usisng his middle name made you a racist( even though now he is using it) so much we couldnt say because it might be deemed racist. so sure he did play the ccard
Kevin,
You made a series of good posts with excellent points. I think you show a lot of cogent thinking. I don’t agree with everything you say but you seem to approach things without a great deal of bias.
Sis,
Have you taken Journalism 301 yet? I’m till waiting for your “My Bad”! LOL
KJL,
I agree with you about Kaine. As for the Geraldine Ferraro thing, I think if an Obama surrogate had said she was only close to the nomination because she was a woman (the flip side of what Ferraro said) there would have been massive cries of sexism here. So the same standard should apply about her Obama comment. She strikes me as sort of a crank. You can’t cry sexism at every possible opportunity and then complain when the other side cries racism at every possible opportunity. The tit-for-tat game is the oldest one in politics.
Nancy, Ferraro’s original statement makes the point that as a three term congresswoman she wouldn’t have been chosen unless she was a woman, and that for the same reason there was an element to race that helped Obama (just as being a woman had helped her). Gerry made the comparison herself.
her concerns about Obama and sexism were separate from the race card issue.
KendallJ said: “What we continue to see is that democratic polititions pay lip service to women’s rights, but actually don’t followup with actions. Our issues are always shoved to the side and put on a back burner after elections are over.”
Kendall, a similar metaphor was used by some women Senators in a statement after Hillary dropped out (Hillary was not among them). Instead of standing up for Hillary, they made a weak little statement about women’s issues needing some attention too and compared themselves to soccer moms and women’s issues to ‘the macaroni and cheese’ on the list of errands.
As long as the women we do have in Congress won’t stand up for themselves and demand equal treatment for themselves — I don’t see voting blindly for just any random woman who runs.
(Of course working for parity by finding strong women candidates and giving them active support is different — persuading them to run, donating money, volunteering.)
Nancy,
I’m not going to spend a lot of time on facts at this level, but Michelle Obama introduced the race card as early as an interview in late 2007. Ferraro’s remark comparing herself and Obama as both tokens was much later.
Do you plan to re-argue every such little point of the campaign here?
I’ve seen the term ‘Obama reconciliation’ used before, as though it meant something special, during the summer of 2008. However it doesn’t turn up much on Google. What exactly do you mean by it?
LETTER TO THE EDITOR THAT ANYONE’S FREE TO USE. MOST PAPERS HAVE A STRICT WORD LIMIT IN THE VICINITY OF ABOUT 200.
———————————————————————————-
To the Editor:
I am writing to you regarding the deteriorating state of women’s rights as evidenced by the behavior of government officials that have gone unchallenged.
The President-elect has appointed 5 women to his Cabinet as compared to 7 in the Clinton administration. This is a set back for women who, in the 21st century, deserve gender parity at the highest levels of government.
Obama selected a pastor to deliver the invocation on inauguration day who has stated that domestic violence is not a justification for divorce.
Obama’s Director of Speechwriting, Jon Favreau, groped a life-sized image of our incoming Secretary of State, Senator Hillary Clinton, and there was no public apology from Favreau or Obama.
Most recently, NY State Senator, Hiram Monserrate was sworn in despite evidence that on December 19, 2008, he brutally attacked his girlfriend.
The issue of women’s rights is an issue of human rights.
As for domestic violence in the United States, the increasing trend is well documented by The Department of Justice, the FBI, and Human Rights Watch. The situation is grave. It is estimated that two to four million women are battered each year. Four women are killed every single day as a result of domestic violence.
Regrettably, I see no public outcry, no media coverage, and no public official willing to take a stand to speak out against this shameful reality in America. Instead, our elected officials and others in the public eye appear to be sending all the wrong signals to girls and boys, men and women, and people all around the world regarding our attitudes toward women’s right in America.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR LINKS
http://www.publishaletter.com/
http://www.allmyfaves.com/
http://www.mondotimes.com/
http://newslink.org/
http://www.democrats.org/page/.....uilderLTE/
http://www.centerforinvestigativereporting.org/
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/index.html
Long exchange here. Can’t catch up. Being lazy and just checking out fsteele’s most recent comment. Responding to a piece of that: While I am a maven about trying to avoid double standards and I truly appreciate your efforts at intellectual rigor, Nancy, in my view, Ferraro’s comment was legit (albeit perhaps not politically savvy) in that Obama had almost no credentials for the job he was applying for and Clinton had loads. In this particular case, I applauded Ferraro’s guts and integrity to say the thing many knew but dared now say for fear of sounding racist. The fact that she could use herself as an example of the same sort (except as a woman not as someone black) made her the perfect messanger. But, apparently, many disagreed. This was the year that the media and other were tripping all over themselves to make sure they did not appear racist, while giving not a mind to spewing sexist remarks willy nilly. Perhaps even disportionately. I wonder if Freud would wonder if the women got even more of their (un)fair share cause the media had a lot of racist comments they were repressing. Who knows?
Senator Kaine says absolutley nothing about outlawing abortion in any case; only the highly controversial partial birth abortion. He wants to REDUCE abortions, which everyone should agree is a good thing. It doesn’t matter if you think abortions should be legal (I do), we should be doing everything in our power to see that the issue is moot because unwanted pregnancies have been eliminated. I don’t agree with the Senators views on abstinence only education, and i think he needs to really re-think this approach.
On another note, it seems people on this website always accuse obama supporters of being robots and whatnot, when in fact it seems that YOU are in the ones in lockstep with ANY candidate who is female. This litmus test you have established is counter-productive to advancing womens issues. If Sarah Palin had been elected VP, as many of you would have like to see, she would have set back womens issues by at least 20 years, not this boogeyman of male oppression you have generated. I agree that there is sexism engrained in our society and it is of a pervasive nature, but simply being a PUMA (whatever that actually means; the group has no ideoogical purpose or consistency) or ranting about Obama simply because he defeated Hillary Clinton is futile, alienating to others who may want to join your cause, and backwards. Would you support Ann Coulter for elected office simply because shes a woman and we should see more woman in office?
Chris,
Read through the piece again. The piece is NOT about a view on choice. It is about the new head of the DNC who represents a constituency that is composed of a majority: 1) women and 2) pro-choice voters.
The piece is about a pattern of behavior by President-elect Obama since he won the election, towards women. The list of Summers, Favreau, Warren and now Kaine (amongst others) continues a pattern.
This is not a “PUMA” site, this is a women’s rights site. We have members that are PUMAs, but we have more members who are registered Dem, Repub and Independents. We are a big tent and we welcome all.
A lot of good dialogue. For me the key is:
1. Give Obama credit when desired – he has appointed many women to first and second tier posts and has a articulated a good Women’s agenda
2. Give Obama hell for not naming more women to senior posts and not making a critical statement, at least, regarding the groping picture
3. Pose the questions to his Economic and Transition Team:
- How will women in construction and trades benefit from his stimulus package
- How will his administration monitor the accomplishment of his women’s agenda?
- How vigorously will his Labor Secretary appointee enforce anti-discrimination, glass ceiling and equal pay legislation?
4. Credit a scorecard of some kind how to track #3 and post it on the web site
This is the kind of action I am about.
sorry for all the typos – do better next time
Chris
Agree with all points in your first paragraph. Well stated.
Regarding your second paragraph: I think you’ve done what I’ve spoken out about on this site (and other sites as well if the situation warrents) is to speak in global terms, which, in my view, undermines one’s argument. You state that “this website always accuses obama supporters of being robots and whatnot.” First, while I take issue with some of what I deam to be sloppy writing on this site, I don’t think anyone can say that this site “always” does anything. Second, in contrast to other activist orgs, from what I’ve observed, this site does not engage in childish name calling such as referring to obama supporters as obots, etc (thank goodness). So, perhaps you’re extrapolating or confusing some of what you read here with what you may read elsewhere.
TNA is not affiliated with PUMA, at least as far as I’m aware, though there may be some shared common goals.
The points you raise that suggest a double standard along with the potential pitfalls of supporting female candidates purely based on their gender is a discussion we’ve been having and members seem to have different viewpoints on it, with some advocating for voting for women irrespective of their position on issues, others feeling that supporting female candidates is very important as are issues, others feeling it’s misguided to support any woman especially if she threw another woman “under the bus” as it were, etc. I don’t think TNA has come out with an official position on this matter and I hope they don’t. I do think that the common agreement is that we need more women in position of power (government or otherwise) and each of us has various ways we feel comfortable advancing that vision.
“This isn’t a parlor game of high morals and purist ideology and feel-good intelligence made manifest, it is a matter of emotional, political and economic survival of women. ”
OK, am I the only one who quits reading at this point because what the hell is a MAN’S objective in writing this?
Even if it’s something as innocent as tone-deafness, it’s more than I can stomach.
Just saying.
Kevin
Appreciate your post. I love the exchanges on the blog, but at some point if we’re going to be an activist org, then we need to act. So, appreciate the nature of your post.
BTW, in case you hadn’t seen this in today’s news: Some good news from the House regarding the Lily Ledbetter legislation and I think for those who read the article, it highlights (among other things) that voting for women based solely on gender and nothing else can work against our interests:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....pay_equity
“I disagree that Obama plays the race card; provide a time when he did.”
Kevin, if you are ignorant, willfully or not, it’s not on us, or anyone else to fill you in on everything you obviously missed or denied.
But just offhand, and this is not including times when Obama’s surrogates, such as Jesse Jackson’s son, played the race card, Obama himself used it more than once, often using the very same language over and over and over. During that private fatcat fundraiser in SF, where he was caught referring to PA voters as “clinging to god and guns” he also made some smarmy reference to xenophobia and also to himself and his race, mocking people whom he imagined saying “did you notice he’s black?”
Obama trotted this same thing out in Florida, falsely predicting that McCain would play the race card…when McCain did no such thing to cause Obama to say such rot, and yet Obama put those same fictional words in McCain’s supposed future campaign….”did you notice he’s black.”
If that is not stinkingly playing the low race card, what is?
I had a few more to post but these memories have so turned my stomach I leave it to you to do your own research to catch up on
an entire deliberate campaign you are so sadly unclued to.
Anna, nice template for a letter to the editor, thanks!!
KEVIN
One of the most repetitve examples of his use of the race card was his references to how many people will think that he doesn’t look like the other faces on dollar bills and that he has a funny name. To my mind, this continually, and intentionally, drew attention to the color of his skin. Curiously, no one was commented on how he looked different from other faces on our paper money nor were there remarks being made about b.a.r.a.c.k. o.b.a.m.a. But, he kept shining a light on it.
EVERYONE
Easy to post over at Pajamas Media on a piece that is a critique of Obama’s and his success, or lack thereof, in implementing the change that he promised. But the article makes no mention of women’s issues. Let’s get over there and do some consciousness raising. You don’t need to register to post:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/w.....-politics/
fsteele….love your observation. Yes, Kaine is further to the right than “feminists for choice” Palin.
Palin has been falsely smeared with advocating abstinence only education. And now here the face of the New Democratic Party (or is that neo-Dem?) is actually advocating abstinence only while Palin supports contraceptive education.
Thank you again, Anna. And the key word Anna wrote, Kevin, is “repetitive.”
The money example was one I meant to cite, but I was too revolted after the examples I cited to go on. Yet, not only was the “faces on the bills” a repetitive example, but so were my examples, which utilized the same language.
The fact that all these examples used the same language and were used time and again proves that is was a concerted effort, a campaign.
Using and reusing the race card.
Chris,
I agree with every almost word you said in your post. I’ve been arguing the same points here for awhile. With little headway, I’m afraid.
The argument that piling onto Obama, and never praising even positive actions of Obama, is counterproductive, is always met with a flurry of messages explaining why I’m uninformed and why hating him is justified. My point is that even IF it were all true, it would still be counterproductive and a waste of the group’s constructive energy to keep fighting election 2008. Even a very bad dog needs some praise if you want his behavior to improve. You can’t just beat him.
I’ve been accused of rehashing the election, when it seems that a great deal of the energy here is spent trying to prove that PUMAS were right, and Obama is evil incarnate. Stories where he does something good with an appointment get five or six posts. Those where is blasted for perceived sexism get sixty.
With all the sexism rampant in the nation, and elections at all levels taking place nationwide, surely it’s not all coming from Obama and his appointees. Surely we can make a difference in other places. So far, our impact on him has been zero.
With the nation overall seemingly thrilled with his cabinet appointments, our voice pointing the deficiencies comes off as shrill and one note when it’s only negative no matter what. At this point, the only new people being persuaded are…Nobody.
It’s not productive in my opinion. I think it promotes a very narrow, non-inclusive version of feminism, not based on issues, but on ones attitude towards Obama and election 2008. It’s like you have to not only hate Obama, but oppose everyone who ever endorsed him, to be seen as pure enough in the minds of many (but not all) of the posters here.
I know I am seen as disloyal here, just as people who criticize any organization in an attempt to make it better usually are. I only want what’s truly best for all women in the U.S. (PUMA or “OBot”), not just those working through the pain and frustration of seeing Hillary lose.
As you might guess from my journey on this site, one of my favorite movies is “Twelve Angry Men.” LOL
Nancy – Sorry for eavesdropping, as your post was written to Chris, but such is the nature of blogs! Your post is well written and thoughtful and I believe it holds many truths….Curiously, one of my favorite films is “Aquirre, The Wrath of God.” Klaus Kinski is brilliant and anything by Werner Herzog is a hit in my book! “Rabbit Proof Fence” is another astonishing film. But I digress.
Amy,
Almost all the Pumas I know (from H44 etc) are still registered as Dem, Repub, or Ind. Some switched from Dem to Rep or Ind as protest; others kept their Dem registration so as to vote in future Dem primaries, work against Obama/Dean/Brazile at county and state levels, etc. Of course some of us Pumas may end up working for Obama in November 2012, depending on who the GOP nominates and whether Obama continues appointing Clintonistas.
Puma is a big tent too.
TNA made an action item this week and there is good news related to it and I see no one addressing it:
Some good news from the House regarding the Lily Ledbetter legislation and I think if you read the article, it highlights (among other things) that voting for women based solely on gender and nothing else can work against our interests:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....pay_equity
Anna,
Thank you, and I want you to know that you are one of the main reasons I keep posting here. Though we may disagree greatly on some things, you are unemotional, open minded, and a critical thinker. I feel I could debate any point with you without it ever devolving into the kind of anti-intellectual curse-outs I’ve been subjected to recently by one person who thinks it’s impossible to reasonably feel differently than they do. It’s a pleasure to read what you write, even when I think you’re wrong. LOL
Have you seen the Herzog documentary “My Best Fiend”, which details Werner’s volatile creative and personal relationship with Kinski. It’s incredible. I actually met Herzog once. He’s a gracious but very intense man.
Rabbit Proof Fence is also awesome. The Peter Gabriel song at the end is a masterpiece, which I have on my iPod.
Don’t get me started talking movies. It’s both my business and my passion.
Nancy
Ditto on the discourse comments.
Never saw that documentary. Very cool that you once met Herzog. (Isn’t he dead now?)
Glad you’ve seen Rabbit Proof Fence. If you haven’t seen it, check out the DVD that usually accompanies it about the making of the movie. It’s as good as the film itself!
End of discussion about movies!
Anna on January 9th, 2009 8:51 pm said: “Some good news from the House regarding the Lily Ledbetter legislation and I think if you read the article, it highlights (among other things) that voting for women based solely on gender and nothing else can work against our interests:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..pay_equity ”
Anna, I read the article but I didn’t see anything that related to, I suppose, behavior of the women currently in Congress…? Maybe it has been cut from the article.
Anna,
I think you’ve got some good points here: ” Even a very bad dog needs some praise if you want his behavior to improve. You can’t just beat him. …. So far, our impact on him has been zero.
With the nation overall seemingly thrilled with his cabinet appointments, our voice pointing the deficiencies comes off as shrill and one note when it’s only negative no matter what. ”
In press releases and other very public statements, there’s your point about beating the dog … but also a point has been made in previous posts about not giving the milk away free. And remember we’re shouting into the wind of a very negative media, which tends to distort our position one way or another.
In your metaphor, your dog is right there and knows whether you’re beating him or praising him from one moment to the next. Whether Obama even knows what we’ve said is filtered through the media, then through his own staff (Favreau, anyone?). I’m sure the women who are actually composing the TNA press releases etc know how best to navigate in this tricky media environment.
I’m not sure that the press releases do, or should, reflect the consensus (if there were one) of the blog thread on the issue, and/or all the people on the membership roster.
CORRECTION – oh, damn, I said ‘Anna’ when I meant to reply to Nancy!
fsteele on January 9th, 2009 10:55 pm
Anna,/Nancy
I think you’ve got some good points here: ” Even a very bad dog needs some praise if you want his behavior to improve.
Nancy (yes, Nancy this time),
I salute you for trying to reach out. I like doing that too. If you’d like to untangle some differnces, I’m availble by email or at a blogspot.
1950democrat@gmail.com
Nancy, re films…
have you seen Southland Tales? I mean, wtf…I turned it on to hear one line “I’ll kill myself if I can’t s-ck your d-ck” and yeah…I love campy but how over the top is that???!!
I always thought Dwayne Johnson was sort of all-American…!
To clarify one point. ‘PUMA’ is often mistakenly identified with one particular group: pumapac.org. In fact most of us who call ourselves Pumas or speak of others as Pumas, are speaking not of members of a particular blog or of a particular organization. To see the range of the Puma movement, look at http://www.dailypuma.com. It surveys a great number (though not all) of sites it considers Puma sites (including The New Agenda, Riverdaughter’s Confluence [ where the term Party Unity My Ass! originated ], etc. ).
Time Magazine’s definition of ‘Puma’ was not too far off, though it needed updating. They said it referred to the Hillary supporters who did not switch to Obama when Hillary did, but instead worked for her to get the nomination herself in Denver. Time should have mentioned that after Denver many Pumas supported the McCain/Palin ticket and voted for it. The 16% of McCain’s voters who would have voted for Hillary are ‘Pumas’ in our definition, whether they ever heard the term or not (as are those who stayed home in protest).
So when I speak of ‘Pumas’, I’m referring to Hillary supporters here and elsewhere who share some of the anti-Obama attitudes (”bashing Obama”) that Nancy has been criticizing (even though some of them ended up voting for him and/or opposing McCain and/or Palin even more strongly).
.
hi, fsteele, a question…
don’t PUMAs also have issues with the Democratic Party and its nominating process that extend beyond Hillary’s candidacy?
I ask because I was an independent Hillary supporter during the primaries, worked with PUMAs, and continue to think of them as patriots. but I never considered myself a PUMA, because I’m not a Democrat, and to my thinking PUMAs were/are disenfranchised Democrats because of their ongoing issues with the machinery of the Democratic Party.
KayJL,
Yes, Democrats protesting the DNC (and hoping to reform it, though that’s pretty hopeless at present) was a big part of most of the Puma blogs I follow. But being a Democrat or ex-Democrat wasn’t any kind of requirement. Anyone who liked Hillary and wanted to pitch in and sympathized with us and disapproved of Obama’s campaign was welcome to call themself Puma or be included.
I’ve heard that after WWII when Israel was formed, the immigration department had a policy: “A Jew is anyone who says he is.”
fsteele, thanks for the response. post-election I was invited to join a number of online groups that would probably qualify as PUMA groups, so yes, it’s true they are very inclusive. I didn’t join, though, because my overriding concern about America predates the election, Hillary, and Obama. My primary belief is that the two major parties have veered too far right and too far left, that as a result they’ve polarized America, they see their roles in Congress as that of waging ideological war against each other through party lockstep, and that Americans need to begin talking with each other again.
So after the election I wanted to join a political discussion that was all-inclusive, still do. But I am grateful to the Obama watchdog groups for doing what they’re doing, because imo there are enough questions about him to warrant the scrutiny, and knowing they’re there gives me the security to join groups and discussions that might result in someday breaking the stranglehold the two far wings of the major parties have had on our country.
it strikes me as a kind of political anomaly that centrists make up the majority of the electorate, but we have no party structure to bring us together–another reason why I think it’s so important for voters to find each other and start talking.
p.s. I also agree that reform is unlikely to be happening anytime soon in the Democratic Party. not that I understand the inner workings of party machinery–obviously, I don’t–but just following along the lines of basic logic it stands to reason that when the candidate who gained from a flawed system becomes the standard bearer, it’s not to his benefit to address the flaws.
KayJL,
What you’re describing comes up in a lot of Puma groups also. Centrism is a big part, so some GOPs and Inds have become involved because they wanted a more centrist home. One of the (too-many imo) mastheads at DailyPuma is “ALTERNATIVE FREE SPEECH from the RADICAL MIDDLE”
One Hillaryis44 Puma and I are doing http://midstreamnews.blogspot.com/ though I’ve got lazy with the most recent few entries.
Many of the Pumas I know were shocked out of ideology by the campaign and are now putting character and fair elections before anything — thus supporting McCain, and now Palin, in spite of differences on issues. Seeing the DNC behave worse than the GOP did in 2000, and being unable to stop them — changed my view of the GOP grassroots.
Apparently I’m using ‘Puma’ in a much wider, more inclusive sense than others here do. The Pumas I know don’t see such narrow sharp divisions, don’t see ‘Puma’ as so clearly defined and limited — it’s more like an attitude shared by many.
KayJL said: “when the candidate who gained from a flawed system becomes the standard bearer, it’s not to his benefit to address the flaws.”
Exactly! That’s one big reason why so many of us Pumas supported McCain/Palin in spite of disagreeing with many of their issues. We wanted the Brazile/Pelosi/Obama faction to lose power, not confirm it.
fsteele, I like your blog! and definitely get the tone of middle ground.
have you ever thought of adding a “midstream” forum to it?
KayJL
” My primary belief is that the two major parties have veered too far right and too far left, that as a result they’ve polarized America, they see their roles in Congress as that of waging ideological war against each other through party lockstep, and that Americans need to begin talking with each other again. ”
I couldn’t agree more! Let me know if you find that centrist place you talked about.
[...] we really supposed to believe any of that in light of this, this, and this? That’s just the beginning; don’t forget Summers, Favreau, the Stimulus Plan. How much [...]
Thanks, KayJL,
Must go now. Pls email me at 1950democrat@gmail.com
I don’t see the point of answering “Nancy” anymore. This is a poster who has come here to, as another poster has said, re-argue every point of the election.
As for Palin’s remarks, I stand by what I said. She didn’t say anything about what she’d do if her daughter was raped. And there’s a huge difference between what choices one makes for oneself, and one’s children, and the laws a politician (above) plans to put in place to force others to live by.
As for “Nancy”’s dismissive comment that claims intellectual high ground that only she stands on while others posting here are just working out their disappointment over Hilary losing: I’m not a Hilary supporter. Never have been.
I’d like to point out Nancy’s divide and conquer tactics here, where she sets Anna apart from the rest of the posters.
I’ve seen this kind of dishonesty in engaging on other feminist boards. It’s usually a man who does this.
The bottom line on this discussion is that Obama is once again NOT who he claimed to be. NOT liberal, NOT pro women, NOT pro choice at all. He’s disregarded and disrespected Hillary Clinton’s positions as being “old school” while turning out to be a complete fraud compared to his “promises” Where have we seen this before? This isn’t new. The shiny young, charming male with the flowery words and promises comes into the office or relationship of any kind and steals away the more competent woman’s position or uses manipulation for gain and once he gets what he wants he shows who he REALLY is. Ho hum, right? EXCEPT this time, it was our future at stake. It was our past that paid and paved the way and was denied. It’s a non issue to most of the world which is the real crime here concerning Obama.
The world is cheering this behavior on…because after all, it’s only women being lied to, cheated and “hoodwinked” We should be willing to “sacrifice”
Abortion rights are not the real issue. The real issue is that Obama is liar who stole history from us and now will not represent his own promises to us in the White House. Feet meet fire, we aren’t going to forget the promises.
Alice Paul,
Good for you! Obama re-frames the equal pay issue as not a women’s issue but a family issue. So, how about re-framing family planning as, er, a family issue?
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...