Tuesday, March 04, 2008
NOW hear this!!
Eli Saslow of the Washington Post gives vent to a collective whine by some aging NOWers about the travails of Senator Clinton’s candidacy: To Women, So Much More Than Just a Candidate
Only it turns out the problem is that the Clinton candidacy is not sufficiently “so much more” for that many women:
“Iowa, where Obama outpolled Clinton among women by five percentage points, was the first sign of trouble. Since then, he has scored nearly as many double-digit wins among women as she has, primarily because black women have voted for him in overwhelming numbers.”
Damm – that identity politics thing bites you when you least expect it.
The article is a veritable treasure trove of easily-mockable statements and observations:
"The issue that's not being talked about in this campaign is the blatant sexism," Wagner said, her words echoing off the granite walls. "There are some people who promote Barack Obama because they want anybody but a woman. Would they like a white man instead of a black man? Of course.”
Which explains why John Edwards is back home working on his acceptance speech.
"They call her a werewolf, a witch, an old hag," [Clinton fundraiser] Moresky said. "I think a lot of women are really in shock about it, and they're going to feel gypped if she loses. Barack will still be another man in charge."
Did she say “gypped”?
“They point to the way Obama pulled out Clinton's chair before each debate, immediately establishing the upper hand in their interaction. "You can bet that's a calculated move," Wagner said, "and it's absolutely demeaning."
I knew there was something about Senator Obama that just didn’t “sit” right with me.
“[NOW] hoped to generate excitement by endorsing Clinton, marking only the second time NOW has publicly backed a presidential candidate.”
To give you an idea of just how serious NOW takes these political endorsements, I offer you a snippet from the previous one:
“After considering the positions and past records of all the candidates lined up to challenge George W. Bush, one candidate stood above the rest for her lifetime commitment to feminist ideals and her 25-year record fighting for the rights of women at the local, state, national and international levels. We are particularly excited when out of a field of strong progressive candidates, the strongest feminist candidate is also a woman.”
That woman was Carol Mosley Braun – whose 25-year record of fighting for women rights, it turns out, had primarily centered on one woman: Carol Mosley Braun.
But the best part of the article was this small diatribe:
“As Wagner and other NOW executives toured Ohio last week, they repeated a resounding message: Clinton has been mistreated by an opponent who subtly demeans her, by a mainstream media that ridicules her, by voters too threatened to vote for a confident woman, by young women who no longer feel the urgency of the women's movement, by African American women for whom race is more important than gender.”
As a conservative, white, male Republican, I’d just like to point out that that subtly-demeaning opponent is Democrat Barack Obama; that the ridiculing mainstream media is certainly not a heavily Republican-populated conglomeration; that the threatened voters are primarily registered Democrats and that the young and carefree who are dissing the women’s movement are, in fact, women. Finally, I’ll let you deep-thinking identity politics aficionados tell me which should be more important – Race or Gender. I wasn’t planning on factoring those in to my November decision but if voting racial and gender pride is the new mark of enlightenment, I’ll listen.
Only it turns out the problem is that the Clinton candidacy is not sufficiently “so much more” for that many women:
“Iowa, where Obama outpolled Clinton among women by five percentage points, was the first sign of trouble. Since then, he has scored nearly as many double-digit wins among women as she has, primarily because black women have voted for him in overwhelming numbers.”
Damm – that identity politics thing bites you when you least expect it.
The article is a veritable treasure trove of easily-mockable statements and observations:
"The issue that's not being talked about in this campaign is the blatant sexism," Wagner said, her words echoing off the granite walls. "There are some people who promote Barack Obama because they want anybody but a woman. Would they like a white man instead of a black man? Of course.”
Which explains why John Edwards is back home working on his acceptance speech.
"They call her a werewolf, a witch, an old hag," [Clinton fundraiser] Moresky said. "I think a lot of women are really in shock about it, and they're going to feel gypped if she loses. Barack will still be another man in charge."
Did she say “gypped”?
“They point to the way Obama pulled out Clinton's chair before each debate, immediately establishing the upper hand in their interaction. "You can bet that's a calculated move," Wagner said, "and it's absolutely demeaning."
I knew there was something about Senator Obama that just didn’t “sit” right with me.
“[NOW] hoped to generate excitement by endorsing Clinton, marking only the second time NOW has publicly backed a presidential candidate.”
To give you an idea of just how serious NOW takes these political endorsements, I offer you a snippet from the previous one:
“After considering the positions and past records of all the candidates lined up to challenge George W. Bush, one candidate stood above the rest for her lifetime commitment to feminist ideals and her 25-year record fighting for the rights of women at the local, state, national and international levels. We are particularly excited when out of a field of strong progressive candidates, the strongest feminist candidate is also a woman.”
That woman was Carol Mosley Braun – whose 25-year record of fighting for women rights, it turns out, had primarily centered on one woman: Carol Mosley Braun.
But the best part of the article was this small diatribe:
“As Wagner and other NOW executives toured Ohio last week, they repeated a resounding message: Clinton has been mistreated by an opponent who subtly demeans her, by a mainstream media that ridicules her, by voters too threatened to vote for a confident woman, by young women who no longer feel the urgency of the women's movement, by African American women for whom race is more important than gender.”
As a conservative, white, male Republican, I’d just like to point out that that subtly-demeaning opponent is Democrat Barack Obama; that the ridiculing mainstream media is certainly not a heavily Republican-populated conglomeration; that the threatened voters are primarily registered Democrats and that the young and carefree who are dissing the women’s movement are, in fact, women. Finally, I’ll let you deep-thinking identity politics aficionados tell me which should be more important – Race or Gender. I wasn’t planning on factoring those in to my November decision but if voting racial and gender pride is the new mark of enlightenment, I’ll listen.
Comments:
<< Home
You must be aware that when/if you voted for Ellen Sauerbrey for governor or Michael Steele for senator, you were not enlightened. She isn't a woman and he isn't black, they've both Republicans and therefore are not allowed protected identity status.
Post a Comment
<< Home
