QUICK VENT: Nancy Keenan, a traitor to women
April 1, 2009
by Amy Siskind
|Thanks to our friends at No Quarter for a great piece today on Nancy Keenan.
I have a growing intolerance for women who sell out other women. This is a pattern that we all at TNA must work to bring into the light of day, and then make extinct!
When we started The New Agenda is August 2008, we collectively decided that we would focus on one person who was a misogynist, sexist or sell out and make an example of him or her. There were loads of names to throw around at the time. The final contenders were Keith Olberman, Maureen Dowd, Chris Matthews (see Hughes’ article below) and Nancy Keegan. I say Keegan because that is what I call her. You see, I have a mental block in remembering names of those that are true traitors and therefore to me, irrelevant.
In the end, we chose Chris Matthews unanimously. The New Agenda, in concert with some PUMA groups, was successfully able to speak out about Matthews throughout the balance of 2008. We were later informed by a poltical consultatant that is was our collective voices that caused Matthews to decide NOT to run for the open Pennsylvania Senate Seat.
At that time, we decided not to go after Keenan, or Keegan, or whatever her name is. We felt that we did not want to attack a woman out of the chute. As well, we had a premonition that she would get her just deserves. We could never have envisioned how quickly.
During the 2008 primary, NARAL endorsed then Senator Obama over then Senator Clinton. This, despite the fact that NARAL is a women’s groups, funded mostly by women, to work on women’s issue. And despite the fact that there was a qualified woman running who had a better track record on advocating NARAL’s major issue than the man running. Now as you all know, The New Agenda is not taking a view on choice, and yes, Nancy does run NARAL which is a pro-choice group. But that is not the point of this vent.
Nancy is a complete and utter sell out and guess what. Once President Obama got elected and didn’t need ole Nancy anymore, one of his first acts was to install his loyalist Tim Kaine to run the DNC. Nancy should have known right then and there that she messed up. Today, The Boston Globe is reporting that:
Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia, President Obama’s hand-picked chairman of the Democratic National Committee, signed a bill including state funding for crisis pregnancy centers, which abortion right advocates calls “anti-choice organizations.”
This is what happens when women sell out other women. Our best chance of moving forward is to work and stick together. And when there are traitors like this, we need to bring them into the light of day for all to see!
I have never understood why anyone after reviewing the record of then Senator Obama thought he would support our issues better than Senator Clinton. It made zero sense and was a sort of intellectual dishonesty with a twist of brain gymnastics that defied all logic to me. Now we are reaping what others have sown and sold out for. It’s very clear through this and other actions that this president has very little regard for women’s rights at all. His appointments are upsetting to say the least. The DNC is now in charge of vetting itself and I no longer trust them even a little bit, this is all thanks to Obama.
Nancy was one of those doing using mental pretzel logic to support Obama and here we are. I am NOT surprised at these events. I am shocked and saddened daily by the entire debacle that has been playing out for well over a year.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Thank you for calling Nancy what she is… a traitor. I saw the No Quarter piece this morning and I thought… now there ya go…. Ole Nan gets her cummupance, and we all pay the price.
Karma bites Keenan in the tush. Never will they get another cent of my money at NARAL.
You ladies (and guys) may talk the talk of a non-partisan organization, but I see very little walking the walk. Of the 4 “final contenders” you name, all are pro-Obama and were vocal supporters during both primary and general campaigns. I know you all have such huge beef with the media for supposedly being in the tank for Obama, but you should note that these are opinion-oriented pundits, and they don’t come out pretending that they’re not biased toward one particular candidate. I don’t necessarily agree with everything these commentators said, but again, they’re not acting like they’re giving you straight news and reporting. They make their ratings off of opinion news and reporting, so your only legitimate claim with them is that you simply don’t like what they say. It’s hard to take an organization seriously as more than a PUMA crowd still bemoaning the loss of their chosen candidate(s) when it basically all leads back to Obama beating Hillary and then beating McCain. I think you all have tremendous potential to really affect change in terms of womens rights, but bashing an extremely popular President and , more importantly, his supporters is going to get you nowhere.
Um, I thought the concept with TNG was NOT to focus on choice, or let beliefs on abortion rights impact and over-ride all other considerations.
I say this as a pro-life Catholic, former Dem., now Indepedent. I do not vote based on choice, but I also do not want to be part of a group where I am supposed to beam with pride at NARAL.
What gives? Is choice or issues around abortion “rights” now the barometer here?
Beam with pride at NARAL?
This is not about NARAL or their issue as I say above:
NARAL is a women’s groups, funded mostly by women, to work on a women’s issue. And despite the fact that there was a qualified woman running who had a better track record on advocating NARAL’s major issue than the man running.
Florida Lady—–
Although it may appear that way, no one is beaming with pride at NARAL at The New Agenda. For us, the abortion issue is strictly off the table as it has been used by BOTH parties to divide women and thus take away much of the power we possess as a voting bloc.
What happened with NARAL as an organization and Nancy Keenan in particular is a prime example of why this issue is off our table. She allowed herself to be rolled now having sold out NARAL for a few pieces of gold. And this is her reward, being dissed for her loyalty to this administration while she was stabbing the viable woman, and thus all of us, in the back.
Selling out the women seems to be a continuing theme of our Democrats these days. For a 40-year rabid Democrat like myself, it was a deal breaker. I’m sorry that Keenan as a leader didn’t have the sense to see what she was doing.
You know, Amy Siskind and I were among the first voices to speak out about this sexism and misogyny, and it was the DEMOCRATS who howled back at us——-”what about Roe v. Wade?” It turns out that they were all duped by this administration on the very issue that Amy and I and others were being threatened about. It was at that moment when many of us realized that the abortion issue was toxic to the rest of the women’s agenda. And so it is for The New Agenda as well. Divisive, toxic, and off the table.
excellent post Amy. Naral came knocking at my door for contributions this past month and I said as long as Nancy was there I would keep my purse zipped.
Also, we wrote several items on the Obama selection of Mr. Kaine and how this was simply playing abortion ping-pong with women’s repro organs.
NO F’ing WAY! Tim Kaine Picked by Obama to head DNC, Kaine a man who is opposed to abortion, whose state has the MOST restrictive abortion laws on the books, Kaine whose stated, YES stated purpose is “Enforcing the current Virginia restrictions on abortions.” Those restrictions include criminal bans on abortion. NOW is the Time to GET ANGRY. As a Gov.of Virginia it is one thing, as the HEAD of the Democratic Party….I DON’T Think SO!
http://www.femisex.com/content.....supports-h
or abortion ping pong.
http://www.femisex.com/content.....-more-punt
I hope the new wave feminist blogs and orgs can work together to see that Nancy goes bye bye.
That all arguments come back to Obama and not HRC winning the primary is not a good long-term strategy. It locks the organization in the past – it is like Hilary has moved on but others have not.
Are any women who who supported Obama feminists, or women’s rights advocates?
I disagree with Tina above who wrote that most of the sexism and media bias came from pundits on the news rather than journalists. That is not true. Tim Russert was considered a journalist and attacked Hillary Clinton like a rabid dog and gave Obama a pass on just about everything and treated him with kid gloves.. Brian Williams is considered a journalist and likewise was condescending to Hillary and also put forth memes that were based on faulty polling info that were designed to disparage her. He, in face, interviewed her on NARAL’s betrayal of her — watch his face. You can tell clearly he was being an absolute jerk and was doing his very best to elicit tears with his statements. Hillary, a solid professional, never gave him the satisfaction.
These are but a couple of examples. The list goes on and on.
This did not just come from MSNBC or the pundit class. There were also many newspaper reports and magazine ‘journalists’ who piled on. They are supposed to report the news — not their happy slanted koolaid sipping nonsense. The ire of PUMAs was and is about a lot more than “our” candidate “losing”. Competent government and leadership is a great deal more important than electing a symbol.
Amy, thanks for referencing my article today.
Welcome Ani.
Kevin you are missing the point. NARAL is a women’s organization whose primary donors are women. Their issue of focus is also one that Clinton was stronger on than Obama (as time has clearly proven out -no?). She had no basis for endorsing him. She did nonetheless and look at the payback. NARAL is not a generic woman deciding on her own on who to vote for. NARAL is a women’s org focused primarily on an issue.
Well said Amy. Both NARAL and NOW are women’s groups who did not endorce a woman who believed in the same mission as both those organizations. Because of that, both organizations have lost their power and respect. On the other side, Feminists for Life (who does not formally endorse anyone because they are non-partisan) did acknowledge that Palin was a member of their organization and they showed their excitement for her nomination. Here is a postive example of a woman’s organization supporting a female politician who believes in their mission.
I think as we get closer to the next elections (2010), TNA will be better able to shine a light on women running for political office – regardless of political party. It will also make it easier by example to show that abortion is off the table.
Amen Kathy.
When one strays from their principles, it ain’t long before the swinging door comes right back and hits ya in the behind.
Nancy got hers in 6 months!
NARAL had no basis for endorsing Obama. They compromised their values by doing so and this is the result. In addition people like Michael Moore compromised their values by endorsing Obama over healthcare when it was obvious that he was lukewarm at best on the idea. Both people knew perfectly well who the stronger candidate was for their assorted issues.
This isn’t about abortion so much as it’s about selling out your principles. I watched people one after the other sell out Hillary Clinton even though she represented their interests much better and now I get to watch them get tossed under the bus one by one.
And no Kevin, I have no intention of moving on. Obama will either start to deliver or he will continue to toss people and ideals under the bus. Regardless I intend to continue commenting on it.
Amy,
I understand your point, the NARAL and NOW should have endorsed the candidate that had a stronger record on women’s issues and more political experience. They did not, so they are traitor organizations; and now, they are playing a price for their duplicity.
My point: such a public position – even if right – is not a good long term strategy to attract members because it shuns women who have an affinity towards NARAL and NOW because you are calling their leaders traitors to women. Such a strategy splits women’s group – those that are really for women and those that are only opportunists.
I also noticed that no one answered my question: “are any women who who supported Obama feminists, or women’s rights advocates?”
Kevin,
I can’t imagine what service it would provide the women and men who both write and blog here, for us to adopt a “political” motivation for our opinions rather than state what we honestly feel and think. We rarely all agree on any one position but we cannot even have a conversation if we censor our opinions with the prevailing political wind. Women and men who agree or disagree with Amy’s opinion of NARAL or NOW’s positions (without getting into choice specifically) can do so here freely, but only if someone is willing to bring the discussion up. Our members and bloggers are not stupid and I don’t think they would want any writer to put forth a “public” opinion that differs from her or his private opinion. That is dishonest. The point of this blog is for people who are interested in women’s rights to have an honest discussion of a wide range of relevant topics. You can’t have an honest discussion if you don’t start with an honest opinion. I have no interest in participating in a “yes” organization or blog. It bores me.
As to your final question, only the women and men themselves can decide if they wish to BE feminists or not, or to be CALLED feminists or not. We are not the arbiters of who is or is not a feminist or a women’s rights advocate. Every woman or man here is smart enough to make up their own mind about whether they feel someone is a feminist. Those who are aware of some of the history of feminist organizations will remember the tactics some have previously used. It was not uncommon for some to threaten to “take away your feminist card” if you do not lock-step with all of the group’s opinions. That is an unfair and frankly high-handed tactic and we are not that kind of group. We do not bully our members here.
I just want to suggest that we be careful about overstating our position. As I understand it, our position is that we officially have no position. The New Agenda is an opportunity for women to form a new political alignment that isn’t divided by choice. But that doesn’t mean that any of us are abandoning our own beliefs about choice.
I am fervently pro-choice and always have been. I personally believe it is a core feminist issue. But, it’s not the only feminist issue. There are many, many problems and challenges that pro-choice and pro-life women can work together on, just as women who don’t even call themselves “feminists” can join with those of us who have been self-declared feminists for years. That’s why I’m here.
Kevin,
I believe that there are feminists who voted for Obama. I am a strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose, but I have occasionally voted for a candidate who isn’t because there are other issues in that election that are more important to me at the time. To say that Obama had the best feminist credentials of the available candidates in the last election is disingenuous, but to say that one is a feminist, but women’s issues were not the most important criteria for choosing who to vote for this time does not negate one’s feminism. For most of us who spend time at the New Agenda, women’s issues are our most important issues so we may occasionally feel that some people are only lukewarm in their feminism. Our job is to up their temperature – not to exclude them. We have moved on from the election until someone tries to convince us that the best feminist won, which triggers the anger again. You need to move on. Taking time to convince us that Obama is a feminist is time that could be better spent trying to convince him that he should be.
Kevin,
President Obama is the leader of the “establishment”. Many people are dissatisfied with the established order relative to women’s rights. It is up to him to do things to win these people over, they are not obligated to take a “trust and not bother to verify” position regarding this administration.
Tina claims,
“bashing an extremely popular President and, more importantly, his supporters is going to get you nowhere.”
Bashing? Accusing social-justice activists of “bashing” those in power is a trick old as dirt and just as low. It’s a label truly deserving of its own “Warning! Orwellian Language!” tag.
The commenter “Keisha” used it a few days ago in the no-apologies-no-comparisons-women-first thread. Now you’re reciting the same claim. Read the responses there, Tina.
Great response, Thia. Kevin keeps trying to put us in a box and we keep wiggling out. That’s the reason feminist issues will never be completely met until we actually have female representation.
I like samanthasmom’s statement: “Taking time to convince us that Obama is a feminist is time that could be better spent trying to convince him that he should be.”
Kevin, Tina — the statements made about Obama in the OP are factual. I’m not sure what you feel is bashing. If anyone is being bashed, it’s a leader of an allegedly woman’s rights organization, refusing to support the first woman with a chance to be President when that woman happens to have the best record on women’s rights and a fairly similar record in other respects.
I think feminists can be Obama supporters, yes. But it’s entirely justified to suggest that for Keenan to take such a visible position given her particular position was selling out women.
Kevin is again deviating the dialogue, making it an Obama admin. issue. This is tiresome.
Kathy in CA,
NOW endorsed Hillary Clinton during the Primaries. They were one of the first groups to do so.
Yes, NOW endorsed Clinton during the primaries.
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...