Earlier today, The Albany Times-Union’s State Editor, Jay Jochnowitz, posted this report on the paper’s Capitol Confidential blog: “The National Organization for Women’s New York chapter issued a scathing reaction to Sen. Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Actually, the word ‘scathing’ feels inadequate here.”
It does here, too. The Politico’s Ben Smith summed the release up in one word: “Whoa.” Slate’s Emily Bazelon added a few of her own: “Whoa is right. Also woe. Also wow.”
If you’re in the mood for some vitriol, you can read the NOW reaction here; otherwise, here’s the condensation:
The piece begins: “Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal.”
And it concludes: “This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability - indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’”
The release’s message is as flawed as its prose; indeed, it seems almost beside the point to note that Obama’s record when it comes to so-called women’s issues is virtually identical to Clinton’s. Still, NOW’s gender-uber-alles reaction to the Kennedy endorsement seems worth pointing out—especially (no pun intended, but) now, coming out of South Carolina and going into Super Tuesday—as a general example of the pitfalls of identity politics. Gender is a factor in the election this year; that doesn’t make it a mandate.
—————————
Update: The AP reports on January 29:
The national office of NOW in Washington, D.C., which has endorsed Clinton, released its own statement.“The National Organization for Women has enormous respect and admiration for Senator Edward Kennedy,” NOW President Kim Gandy wrote. “For decades Senator Kennedy has been a friend of NOW, and a leader and fighter for women’s civil and reproductive rights, and his record shows that.”
Gandy said her group respects Kennedy’s decision to back Obama.
‘We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote,’ she said.
Who says that only another woman can address women's issues? Who says that Hillary Clinton is, in fact, that woman? And for that matter, who says that Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama has done anything to change the voters' minds?
I am a woman, oh, yes, I am. . .but my own personal choice for the best candidate for America is John Edwards. He is the only populist, the only friend of labor, the only one brave enough to stand up to the Fat Cats and bring needed attention to what their obscene greed is doing to this country.
I will vote for Hillary if she is my party's candidate, but it won't be because she is a woman. If she wins, it will be one for the history books--but does her gender then make her somehow omniscient? Will she be all the wiser because she's a woman? No. Not any more than she'll be dumber or sillier.
Her gender is only one part of who she is. Barack's race is only one part of who he is. And that's how it should be. Neither of them expects any favors because of it, nor should they receive any.
Hillary chose to run for the highest office in the land, not because she wanted to be the first woman president, but because she wanted to be president.
This reaction from NOW is disappointing and disheartening. We women don't deserve a woman president; we deserve a president who understands the responsibilities of the office and feels obliged to carry them out. If either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can fill that role well and make us proud,who of us has the right to stand in their way simply because we're not of their gender or race?
NOW is looking at this with the same narrow-minded blinders we saw on the one-issue, me-first voters who put the likes of GWB in office. I expected better of them. Silly me.
Posted by monicalee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Mon 28 Jan 2008 at 10:02 PM