Who the heck is the NOW person from NYS who wrote this stuff?

There is one paragraph that is totally completely spun out of whole cloth and thin air, and whatever else the heck trite saying you can think of. In other words, it is just plain lying.

Senator Ted Kennedy Betrays Women by Not Standing for Hillary Clinton for President

The title itself is just not true. But wait until you read this paragraph!



That is unbelievable that a group would send out a press release like that. It says "For more information contact: Marcia Pappas, 518-452-3944 - 518-469-2661"

Howard and Jim Dean and Ted Kennedy are against a woman for president??? Jim Dean at DFA supports the ones who were voted on by the group, he is NOT opposed to anyone. Howard Dean, his brother, is 100% neutral. And of course Ted Kennedy is not betraying women. Where did this come from?

Does anyone know who in the world this is? Why would she write such obviously wrong stuff?

and not the first woman candidate for President?

I know we were told to lower our expectations here, but your comment is below my expectations.

Women have the right to be pissed, and if you don't think so, maybe you need to figure out what they mean.

Or is that beneath you too?

:hug:

That is just pathetic.

AS so many other Old White Men are, like all the Old White Men where I work.

All except ME, and she isn't my first choice.

to support the woman just because she's a woman.

I'm sure Barack Obama or John Edwards can protect my rights just as much as Hillary.

Mz Pip
:dem:

But, so many here hate Hillary JUST because she is a woman, including the women.

I really don't think this board is infested with woman haters, men or women. It's sort of like implying that people who support John Edwards must be racist or sexist or both.

I'm not a Hilary hater. I've defended her here. Good grief, I'm running out of years for an opportunity to see a woman president.

Mz Pip
:dem:

But I save the red X for them. I can't waste my time reading their bullshit.

I would love to have an exceptional female nominee with moxie such as Barbara Boxer. Now that is a woman I would gladly support.

...so they play in Florida. Guess Who?


"Everybody lies."
-Gregory House, M.D.

I hate refusing to apologize for mass murder. I hate NAFTA and welfare "reform", three strikes and the 1996 Telecoms Act. I hate Penn and Carville and Begala. Clinton? She'd be just fine without all that crap tagging along.

That would be Victoria Woodhull - and she was followed by many, many others. Historical amnesia is America's least charming fault.

And no, I do not support the return of a Clinton administration. They've had their chance and they made clear what they stand for.

http://www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/wood-vic.htm

On April 2, 1870, Victoria announced in the New York Herald her plans to run for president of the United States -- the first woman to do so. It would be 50 years before women could vote, but there was no law preventing women from running for office. In addition, men of color had seats in Congress and several State legislatures. Sexual equality seemed very likely. Her plan was to run independently and use the journal to publicize her campaign. Her platform was of social and political reform. She was most dedicated to free love but, as she learned more about how few rights women had, she also made voting rights her mission as well.

On January 11, 1871, Victoria appeared before the House Judiciary Committee -- the first women ever -- to deliver a memorial (a speech personally presented by a citizen before Congress, to persuade it to enact a law) on women suffrage. This caused quite a stir. By now a brilliant orator, Victoria stated that women already had the right to vote, since the 14th and 15th amendments granted the right to all citizens. She argued that all women had to do was use their right. It was no surprise when the congressional majority report was not favorable, but the minority report (signed by Benjamin Butler) gave the strongest official argument to date in favor.

Victoria's speech was so impressive, the suffragists invited her to speak at their National Women Suffrage Association convention the next day. (Actually, her speech pre-empted their convention; they moved it a day later to hear what Victoria had to say.) Its leaders, Susan B. Anthony, Isabella Beecher Hooker (sister to Harriet Beecher Stowe), Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, admired Victoria, defending her beliefs and welcoming the publicity she brought to their issue. Her speech also catapulted her into leadership with the suffrage movement. Victoria's many speeches were not subtle and genteel; they were ablaze with passion and condemnation for Victorian hypocrisies and political inequities. Newspapers cited her as "the ablest advocate on Woman Suffrage, a woman of remarkable originality and power."

But her enemies grew. And of course she was judged by different standards than male politicians and reformers. Harriet Beecher Stowe parodied Victoria in a comic novel ("My Wife and I") as a brainless free lover who spoke of women's rights without knowing what they were. Another sister, Catherine Beecher, who wrote about women's role within family, lectured Victoria on morality and threatened to bring her down if she continued promoting free love. Unfortunately, family conflicts also created bad publicity when her mother sued her husband James for improperly spending money. (Actually, her mother abhorred the fact that Victorica and her sister Tennessee were no longer under their parents' control; in particular, that they were not touring and fortune-telling any more.)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

unless I actually ever avowed such a faith. But I don't care.

If anyone here is working for them, why shouldn't it be you with your illogic?

If you take what I said to heart, fine, but get to the point. I am so tired of the bashing of OUR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES here, be they Hillary, Obama or Edwards. And if you take offense to that, too bad.

Are you sure you are working in her support?

I haven't supported ANY candidate except Al Gore the non-candidate. When one of them is nominated, I'll work for and support their nomination, Until then, I get equally pissed at any jackass that feels it necessary to bash any of the candidates.

I guess that bothers you that someone here can remain neutral except when the haters come round for their pound of flesh.

Oh I almost forgot.

Aw. Now DainBramaged (you can't make this stuff up) may never tell me if his policy - that all politicians with a "D" qualify by divine right for permanent immunity from criticism - applies equally to Lyndon LaRouche, or that incoherent nutter whose name I forget, oh yeah: Lee Mercer?

ON EDIT: Aw come back! The pickings were so rich and easy. You will be missed.

A black woman who was famous for not being bought. I'd have voted for her in a heartbeat had I been old enough.

Would you endorse a friend of the bastards who killed two of your brothers??

Well, maybe if she were a woman!

Good for you. Bleat elsewhere.

Are you sure you're on the right board?

the shit you see here lately boggles the mind....

using the ignore button- what a sufficient way to debate your point. and i was so interested. i was truly waiting to read somewhere, anywhere, a point by point dissection of all of the weight on clintonian shoulders.

does using rationale make one a rethuglican? i think not. the only one who sounds rethuglican here is you, bullying other posters for not supporting your candidate and plugging your ears when someone refers to her past. and using estrogen alone as a barometer is hardly better than "old white dudes" hating just because "she's a woman." you sound like a stepford wife gone haywire more than a rational female defending her candidate's worthiness.

the stuff that eridani @ 63 posted- i've seen a loooot about that, but short of blind bushling-like "support" and "she's a womyn deal with it," i've never read a hillbot explain any of it.

and i honestly wish someone would, because, unfortunately, i have a feeling she'll get the nom before my chosen candidate does, judging by the corporate media's propping. i want to like her. i really, really do. as a woman, i would love to see a woman elected president, and i'm hoping that the next decade will be better than the last. but at this point, my fear is that it will only be another 4, er, 8 years of the same old bullshit.

Unless your post was sarcasm and it flew over my head...

This one is polite in comparison.

You may not have liked the terms being used, but it came at the end of a week where Hilary was taking gender-based attacks non-stop.

and are attacking me?

I am beginning to think DU has become some alternate universe.

Racism can be detected in any statement. But not sexism.

Do you want a playoff between racism and sexism to see which is worse? That would be, like, so constructive and enlightening, you know?

At any rate, this is a sad low point for Clinton supporters - "Vote Clinton or you are sexist!"

just because it's a woman representing it doesn't mean I favor repealing title IX.

Hillary's politics are objectionable, not her gender.

Whomever wrote it, it seems very immature and amateur.

Pappas is the contact listed, doesn't mean she wrote it. Even if she did, probably still very young.

And I'd hope she's young the way she writes.

I never thought I would see the day an opinion was dismissed on a supposedly "progressive" board because it may have been written by someone who was "very young"

<storms off in mock outrage>

the word is not the right word. but--

This is outrageous.

I'm sure they have more than a few of them

Edit Update -

I have been doing a Google search on this person and I am getting NO hits in regards to the National Organization of Women.

I find that really suspicious.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4251348

Thanks for the links, I was going to search and you saved me the effort.

They are referring to another post...but pretty bad. Hillary should speak out about this stuff as they have endorsed her.


http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html

be bigoted, ignorant, self-righteous assholes every bit as much as men do.

(Could it be part of the New Feminism?)

I never thought anyone here would attack me for saying this woman is posting stuff that is just not true. She is attacking three good men, Kennedy, Dean and Dean.

And I and others have been insulted by people who agree with her.

I am stunned and sickened.

and that is a fact.

Can't believe people think what she wrote is ok.

good bye. When I am being baited that is what I do.

I want to know if you think it's OK to bash Hillary.

But, if you are saying goodbye,

it is perfectly fine to bash the corporate bought off Hillary Clinton. I dislike her husband even more though...he was a Republican wearing a Democrats suit. She will set into motion the same b/s policies he did and set the Democratic Party back years.
I guess many of the people here are too respectful to state it outright, but you are acting brainless in your support of Clinton. But I have one more thing to ask, isn't it anti-feminist to support someone based on their gender and not what they represent? I asked the same thing about that b/s argument that Gloria Steinem gave in the NY times.

This is very weird. Anyone else know anything about her and her relation to NOW?

http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html
Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President

Pretty awful.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Marcia+Pappas&btnG=Google+Search

first link
http://www.nownys.org/contact.html

That is just amazing. She accused the two Dean brothers for some unknown reason...and Kennedy of hating women.

I don't know Ms Pappas from Eve, and I may be interpolating a lot into a simple statement, but has she actually worked in a corporate environment?

As a woman who remembers the days when "Help Wanted - Male" ads were legal, let me say that Ms Pappas and NOW do not speak for me. I follow NYS politics, since my family all live there, and Clinton seems to be a very able senator. And if she gets the Dem nomination I will vote for her. But she is not my first choice. IMHO, she has a sense of entitlement, that a woman "deserves" the job, and that woman is her. She's smart, she's able, she knows her way around Washington, but she reminds me of the woman who comes into a work environment where everyone else has worked her/his way up to where they are and expects the corner window office because she's related to the boss.

in her remarks and have written to N.O.W.'s New York chapter to suggest she apologize for making them.

They were the comments of anger and not analysis and IMO do not represent the views of a majority of N.O.W. members, of which I am one.

People have a right to be disappointed in outcomes. To be persuasive, they need to know how to respond to those disappointments.

Geez what a giant leap in logic. "You're not for us, so you're against women". What a stupid statement, hope it backfires. I'm a woman and I take offense to the retardedness of this statement.

And one of them the party chairman.

It is sickening. And it upsets me to see people here at DU defending statements like that.

when I read the piece, I flashed back the radical 1960's essay "The Redstocking Manifesto". NY NOW is out of touch and sound a bit ridiculous. This is coming from a woman who has strongly supported pro-choice causes fervently.

I have not heard a peep out of them about women or any other topic like that.

What is she talking about and why include those two? Makes no sense at all.

film actor, James Dean, and the guy who makes all those sausages, Jimmy Dean.

Also the country & western singer, Billy Dean.

brother Jim, I have never met the fellow - indeed I don't recall Jim Dean ever hanging with Howard in Vermont - but his emails leave no evidence of hating women.

What is she talking about, however, is easy to understand. A large part of the anti-Hillary public are also anti women not in their proper role (as in - you will be a VP after you sleep with me - and after we end it, you will leave or be forced to leave the company - I saw this in 3 Fortune 50 companies and and heard it many many times over the years).

Indeed some talk shows find it funny that these people - who are often also "lightly - after all they are Dems" racists - are being forced to choose between their biases - and they note they almost always favor Obama in the end.

I don't have the TV on right now.

I can't find any real fault with this --

When African-Americans males got the vote --- women didn't ---
and they didn't for another huge long period of time!!!

That was betrayal --- and in a patriarchy, it's men first.

And we still have a patriarchy ---

I think that's the nugget of these comments ---

and I agree ---

Obviously, the Kennedy's going in another direction was going to be a huge snub for Hillary ---
and it looks like it was intended to be a big blow -- I'm sure it was.

I haven't read the comments of the Kennedys on this and why they did it ---
but I disagree re Obama and Hillary -- I won't vote for either!!

and she told me that some women don't like Kennedy because of Chappaquidik and defending his cousin during the accused rape in Florida a decade ago. She wasn't sure about NOW, but told me that Ted had the womanizer reputation and he would get some flak for that...

Maybe there is some hidden anger showing up from some similar views.

but she might begin to rethink Chappaquidic ...

In the Nixon tapes you hear John Dean* talking in the White House Oval Office to Nixon --
and I think Haldemann is there, as well --- and he is saying to Nixon . . .

"...wouldn't Ted Kennedy be surprised to know the bear traphe'll be walking into this weekend..."

THAT was the weekend of the Chappaquidic "accident."

Some think that actually Ted was mugged -- and someone else --- likely E. Howard Hunt --
impersonated Ted and crashed the car -- there are other bits of evidence surrounding this which
also make an argument for Ted not being responsible for what happened. E. Howard Hunt did return
to Chappaquidic to research and write an anti-Ted Kennedy book -- but he was very concerned about
wearing a CIA disguise. Some think this is evidence of his not wanting to be recognized.
In particularly, he was concerned about disgusing his voice.


* Just want to comment that I like John Dean --- but I'm also suspicious of him.
He obviously knew he was working for criminals/thugs --- and he would have hung in there
had Watergate not happened. I doubt very much that he has spilled all the beans and I'm
not aware that anyone has ever asked him about his words on the tapes.

info@nownys.org

ill-advised reaction to Sen. Kennedy's endorsement of Sen. Obama is disproportional to her organization's lackluster support of Sen. Moseley Braun in the 2004 nomination race.

Politics is not a drive-through restaurant where you order exactly what you want at the mike and drive around and someone hands it to you in a bag. The New York chapter of N.O.W. ought to know that.

I really don't believe NOW would do this type of thing, as radical as they might have been. They would know Kennedy is on their side. My guess; the early starting of Republican dirty tricks.

b/c if not, i'm am deeply disappointed.

Marcia Pappas is the President of NY NOW.

http://www.nownys.org/contact.html

and always have.

organization will be faced with entering negotiations for the advancement of women's concerns with a president whose supporters she's essentially trashed with this press release.

Short-term rant, long-term risk.

It was more than unwise.