Shut Up Now N.O.W. !

 

 

The National Organization for Women just took a gi-normous step backward in the credibility arena.

 

Marcia Pappas, President of the New York State Chapter of N.O.W. spoke out the other day and intelligent women everywhere wanted to scream “Oh, shut-up, Marcia!” 

 

After veteran Senator Ted Kennedy’s very public endorsement of Senator Barack Obama in the presidential race this nit-wit woman issued a news release  blasting the Massachusetts Democrat.

 

“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal,” Pappas wrote in a scathing rebuke.  "Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard."

Marcia, Marcia, Marcia….

Pappas screeched on about feelings of abandonment.  And, like a diva with her hands on her hips and her foot stomping the ground, she cried about Kennedy,  "He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton."

Please!

I’m embarrassed for this woman and for the entire organization. 

I’m not a member of N.O.W. (or any other advocacy group) but isn’t the mission of the National Organization for Women to fight for equal rights, equal pay, reproductive and health issues?  Aren’t they there to try to help combat violence against women and help mothers who may be single or battered find their way in the world?  Wasn’t the organization established to help promote true diversity as a way of life? Who elected them to tell me who to vote for?

 

In one swoop Marcia-Marcia-Marcia Pappas added fuel to that long burning fire about irrational women who demand things before they think them through.  Thanks a lot, Marcia. 

 

Look, I’m not saying that Senator Edward Moore Kennedy is God’s gift to women - far from it.  When I was a rookie reporter on Capitol Hill all of my female colleagues knew the score about Kennedy.  Close and solo proximity was to be avoided lest you fall victim to some sexist comment or proposal. The Kennedy marriage to Joan was a sham and Ted was, ahem, shall we say ‘not discrete’ as he and some of his senate buddies made their evening rounds of Capitol Hill drinking establishments. Oh, and of course there was that poor girl at Chappaquiddick.

 

I have mixed feelings about Ted Kennedy but there is no doubt that over the course of his long tenure in the United States Senate he has been a friend to women, to children, to public education, to family issues.  He will likely continue to be in the future. 

 

That realization immediately dawned on the national President of N.O.W. as she quickly followed up the Pappas pap with a clarification that the big-girls at the Washington office still have “enormous respect” for Kennedy. Kim Gandy said further that her group respects his decision to back Obama.

 

The old man’s decision to throw his weight behind the young man made me think a new day may be dawning in the Democratic Party.  Democrats may soon decide it’s just not enough to be “next in line” for the nomination. With two historic firsts in this race – the first woman and the first African American who stand a real chance of hoisting the party’s mantle – Democratic leaders may be weighing the one true issue. 

 

Forget which one is the woman and which one is black – which is the best person to be President of the United States?

“We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote," said N.O.W. President Gandy.    

That’s more like it, Kim. Vote for whoever you think would make the best leader of our country and I will respect your right to choose.

 

 Now, Kim, could you have a heart-to-heart with Miss Marcia-Marcia-Marcia?

 

 -30-

 

POST YOUR COMMENTS HERE

 

 

 

John L. from New Jersey writes:

          Tch tch ... They're fighting in the lifeboats!

 

 

Ben H. from Katonah, NY writes:

     Your perspective on this is spot-on. Marcia Pappas is suggesting that Hilary Clinton’s gender is the overriding criteria for which she deserves the female vote. Philogyny is as counter-productive to the women’s rights movements as is misogyny. Voting for Hilary simply because she is a woman is as egregious as not voting for her because she’s female. Pappas’ stance seems to be inconsistent with N.O.W.’s mission to promote women on their merits.   

 

Ray in Santa Barbara writes:

     As usual you cut to the heart of the issue.  As an advocacy group N.O.W. should be concerned about the best candidate for their constituents.  Would they want an anti-abortion woman over a pro-choice man?  Would they want a woman who is anti-health free care for poor children over a man who is for it?   Gender is not the issue and never should be.  Let's not forget that Hillary's hubby committed the ultimate betrayal and humiliation of her in front of the entire world.  It was Hillary's business and her business alone to forgive and stick with him.  But I wonder if N.O.W. would recommend that course of action for women in general.  Would they say that Hillary should have dumped the SOB and that she is not a good example for other women?  I don't know the answer, but the point is that just because Hillary is a woman, that doesn't make her the best candidate.