Letters to the Editor
-
How is this
any different than Gloria Steinem's think in the times?
-
The irony?
How Pappas of NOW's NY chapter appears to Broadsheet is how Broadsheet appears to everyone else.
-
Why does this post read differently than originally posted
The original post seemed somewhat more sympathetic, or at least neutral, to NOW-NY's position. What happened?
-
Wow, Catherine - that took some brass ovaries to say!
I have to give you credit here (with no sarcasm); you're actually bucking the feminist party line by saying that you will NOT just vote for Hilary because she is female ?!?!?!
Better be careful - your sisters at NOW and other feminist organizations may consider your belief in electing the best candidate (whether male or female) to be extremely traitorous...better watch your back, amiga!
{Yes, I've read one John Grisham novel too many...=}
-
So you got this press release, it seemed outrageous, you double checked and it was real, and then you
vanished it without discussion because it appeared to be bad for the "XX Team" as I think TCF put it.
GREAT!
That's why no one respects you.
-
Or...
on whether we both have ovaries
..if you both have both overies.
SO-o many variables
[How IS a girl to choose?]
-
Not the worst Press Release
I read about this on feministing, and one of the commenters pointed out this press release also from the NY NOW, which is also pretty ridiculous:
http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html
The headline is: "Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President"
That press release is credited to Marcia Pappas, the NY NOW president. The writing style (excessive exclamation points, side remarks) is very similar to the January 28th release.
h/t feministing, commenter JennD.
-
How Many is "Everyone Else"?
"Everyone else," Linney?
Speak for yourself. I'm betting you couldn't back up this claim in any way whatsoever.
-
Actually,
I thought that Taylor Marsh's take on NY NOW was pretty insightful. You can read it here:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/
Of course, no one should cast her/his vote for a candidate merely because that candidate is female. To do so would be sexist. Just as to cast one's vote for a candidate just because that candidate was black would be racist. The same follows that if one is a white male that to refuses to cast a vote for a candidate because that candidate was not white or not male would be, respectively racist and sexist.
See, it goes both ways.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that if race or sex or religion or sexual orientation -- or any of that stuff -- accounts for more than 10% of your reason for voting for that person you are probably either functioning from bigotry or just too lazy to research the issues.
Dare I say it: There are probably Broadsheet trolls who would not vote for any woman -- no matter how qualified -- for President of the United States because they would feel that their sex was losing ground.
YAWN.
-
Endorsing the Unfathomable
Hillary was born in Chicago. The 48th Ward. She moved to Park Ridge at the age of 3. While she has throughout her career come to the 48th Ward to raise money (at Women & Children First) she has never never never acknowledged the fine female political representatives at various levels in her natal Ward and Congressional District (something in the water here, we have a lot) -- had she hosted a dinner for the Cook County Democratic Woman when at the convention in Chicago in 1996 (or any other time -- or even had some photo ops) rather than partying with her Park Ridge High School (republican) friends, Obama wouldn't be her nemesis here in Chicago.
Hillary does not respect or acknowledge women who have been elected to political office.
I see no reason for NY NOW to get their panties in a twist.
-
What is NOW?
When you boil it down NOW is a special interest group. It is their job to promote their interests above everyone else's.
In that sense they are no different than the National Association of Manufacturers or the AMA. And like those groups, they like to do their business behind closed doors whenever possible. This especially true when their interests are not going to make them popular.
We should be thanking this fat windbag for openly saying what she wants.
-
@ Lamont Cranston
With all due respect, I cannot see what your feelings about Senator Clinton and Chicago's 48th Ward have to do with the statement by NY NOW. First of all, Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with whatever NY NOW might have to say. They are an organization completely independent of her. They have every right to get their undies in a twist if they choose, since we do have free speech in American.
You know what, I moved from the town I was born in when I was about 3. I have never been back and never felt any particular obligation to go back. I have almost no memories of it. However, Hillary Clinton sure should have gone to the 48th Ward and hosted a dinner, right? Even if she has no memories of it? If she sees Park Ridge as her home territory instead, what is wrong with that? You are complaining she didn't host a dinner? Next you will be complaining that she doesn't bake cookies.
Is it the text of the NY NOW release you have an issue with or just Hillary Clinton?
-
"We should be thanking this fat windbag for openly saying what she wants."
How do you know she is fat?
-
http://www.nownys.org/faces.html
http://www.nownys.org/faces.html
-
2004 NOW endorsement
http://www.now.org/press/08-03/08-26.html
Oh, by the way- seems that the NOW national chapter endorsed Carol Moseley Braun for president back in 2003.
She didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but she did have a precious vee-jay-jay.
(You'd expect someone at Broadsheet to remember something which happened only 4 or 5 years ago, right?)
-
Sen. Clinton's Chicago "roots"
The reason that any Chicago-born politician or spouse (especially if affiliated with the Democratic party) should make super-nice with the local pols is that this city is a major player in national politics (1960, anyone?) and our public officials (especially the king-for-life in City Hall) LOVE to be "stroked" by the big boys and girls. Maybe if Sen. Clinton had hosted a ladies' tea in 1996 Richie Daley would be a bit more predisposed to endorse her over Sen. Obama (who has his tacit, though not yet explicit, OK.)