NOW backs Clinton for more than her gender

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070715/NEWS02/707150616

DEARBORN
NOW backs Clinton for more than her gender

July 15, 2007

BY KATHLEEN GRAY

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

The biggest debate over presidential endorsements for the National Organization for Women wasn't necessarily about the candidate who would get the group's nod.

The biggest question was the timing of the announcement that NOW was endorsing U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., for president.

A few board members want to wait until after the primaries, but they were overruled, Kim Gandy, president of NOW, said Saturday during the group's annual convention in Dearborn, which wraps up today. Clinton got the endorsement in March, a full 20 months before the 2008 election. She did not attend the convention Saturday.

But it wasn't automatic that Clinton, the only woman in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes, would get the endorsement of the nation's largest feminist organization.

"There's only one candidate who throughout her career had worked to better the situation for women and girls," Gandy said. "It's very important to understand that NOW has taken the position not only because she's a woman, but we endorse the best feminist."

But endorsing Clinton and electing her are two different issues.

FULL story at link.

Not.

cripes...

the lengths you Hillary haters will go to....

in letting George Bush off the hook.

just so you can score some cheap points.

emphesis on cheap

...who voted against it, if you noticed. It was an awful, awful vote on the single most important subject our government deals with, and all who participated should be held accountable for their vote. Or are you thinking it was just one little vote, who cares?

And who said I was letting Bush off the hook?

Sheesh!

the compromise IWR in October 2002, because the alternative was even worse.

By October 2002, Bush was still riding high on his post 9/11 popularity surge, and Republicans were poised to take over both chambers of Congress in the November election. The Democrats were faced with a terrible choice -- approve the compromise resolution in October, which they believed put some limits on Bush's actions -- or defeat it. If they defeated it, the certain outcome was that the Repubs in January would have rammed through an ever worse IWR -- one that would have given Bush a blank check, and permission to invade Iran or anywhere else he chose.

As it turned out, Bush kicked the inspectors out before they could finish their job, and attacked Iraq anyway. But the only reason we're not in Iran at the moment -- at least not openly -- is because Bush didn't get the version of the IWR that he initially proposed. He got the compromise version, that Senators like Clinton voted for. Not because they were happy about it -- but because the alternative would have been even worse.

The Dems who voted against it could do so knowing that the compromise bill would be approved anyway, and we wouldn't have to face the possibility of Bush's preferred resolution being passed in January. But if the Dems had voted en masse to defeat the IWR in October, that wouldn't have stopped the war. All it would have done was to have delayed the IWR until January, when the Rethugs would have had the votes to pass the version Bush wanted, giving him a free hand in Iraq, Iran, and virtually anywhere he wanted.


Clinton and the other Dem Senators all had a very difficult choice to make. It wasn't pro war vs. anti war. It was much more complicated than that, as life -- and politics -- often is.

THIS is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy about NOW --

QUOTE: Kim Gandy: "There's only one candidate who throughout her career had worked to better the situation for women and girls," Gandy said. "It's very important to understand that NOW has taken the position not only because she's a woman, but we endorse the best feminist."

We've had rising FASCISM in America . . . but they didn't notice that!!!!

You cannot simply see your own issue and ignore the higher perspective on what's happening in the nation!!!

The NAACP is great about this . . . when they talk about human rights . . . they also talk about the rights of females, of homosexuals, of people of every color. They understand fascism.

Overall, it's impossible to get the liberal/progresive organizations to work together !!!!

And it's a great waste . . .

What good are women's rights when we have a fascist Supreme Court overturning them?????

Wake up NOW!!!!!

I swear, the nonsense that gets posted on this website grows more absurd by the day.

R

They are an organization that is about women and success and rights. they would probably back her over anyone else because of gender unless she is a republican.

hard as she has on women's issues? That her gender was the only thing that separates her from the other candidates in this area?

I know. He's cute.

As for Senator Clinton, she raised some eyebrows in the pro-choice community when she said:
"There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

http://slate.com/id/2112712/

As for other candidates, there certainly are others who have firmly proven they stand for women's rights.

Here are some ratings for Obama:

Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2006.

Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2005-2006.

Senator Obama supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

On the votes that the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Obama voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Based on information available in 2002, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council chose to endorse Senator Obama.

On the votes that the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Obama voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the Illinois Federation for Right to Life considered to be the most important in 1997-2000, Senator Obama voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

On the votes that the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council considered to be the most important in 1997-1998, Senator Obama voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=9490

Their marriage is their business.

it lends one to believe that they'll endorse a woman over most any man. Braun didn't even have a campaign outside of her NOW supporters.

this is certainly big for hillary

..and when their husband cheats on them, they should just stick together.

Heck, no cookies though.

Just take the long view...career over getting fucked over in a marital relationship. Honey, you can't stand on your own. You need that cheating husband with the new looks and power to hold your little hand and smile for the photo op, baby.

Trust? Just add fund, tootsie.

It's the New Feminism. All the talk without the teeth. How transparent of NOW.

:sarcasm:

or, I would hope, anyone else's but your own.

Feminism, I would think, means a woman is free to make her own about decisions about her marriage and her relationships.

Despite the public press release, I have a hard time believing that Hillary's gender alone wasn't a deciding factor.

Personally, I can't wait to celebrate a woman being sworn in as Commander-in-Chief, but I think it waters the accomplishment down a great deal when the woman in question probably wouldn't even be a viable candidate, if she weren't married to a well-liked former president. Whether you support Hillary or not, that ain't feminism, folks. I'm guessing the dissenters at the NOW conference might agree with me.

In fact, Obama/Boxer would be pretty cool! Probably a tougher sell than other ticket choices, but I think they would rock!

Your sig pic hasn't been working lately. What's up with that? And who was the guy in the pic when it was working? Not to change the subject, but I've been curious about that pic for a while and now that it isn't showing up, it reminded me to ask. :hi:

selection of a candidate has become a much more personal evaluation and decision.

How much money and how many volunteers is NOW going to steer toward Hillary? They didn't seem to be able to do much for Braun in '04.