Feminists For Obama. I'm #1085

It's always empowering to know you are not alone.

I've encountered many female communities in my lifetime that have reminded me why women are so very influential.

This latest effort reminds me once again the hand that rocks the cradle, rocks the world.

Visit the site to add your name.

"...Choosing to support Senator Obama was not an easy decision for us because electing a woman President would be a cause for celebration in itself and because we deplore the sexist attacks against Senator Clinton that have circulated in the media. However, we also recognize that the election of Barack Obama would be another historic achievement and that his support for gender equality has been unwavering.

In backing Senator Obama, we are mindful of the inconsistencies in his voting record and the limitations of his own plans for withdrawal. Yet it is noteworthy that at a time when this position was politically unpopular and when he was aiming for national office, Barack Obama opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and has spoken out against the war ever since. This puts him in a far better position to articulate a clear challenge to a Republican opponent.

We are also moved by the positive tone of the Obama campaign, the tremendous energy it has released across the country, the dramatic engagement of young people and the impetus for change that his candidacy embodies.

We are speaking out now because we cannot afford to elect another President who will continue the aggressive, interventionist policies of the present. "

Hell yes. My name is #1085. What's yours?

Now, more than ever, Senator Clinton needs to step down.

Comments

[Thorn]

"My name is #1085."

Wow. Using a number as your name. That is SO empowering!

[Jayferd]

The idea that Obama's voting record has been "inconsistent" on feminist issues is a distortion that has been planted by the Clinton campaign. It's a shame that now even Obama supporters continue to repeat it.

Any "Present" vote has to be taken with two grains of salt:

1. "Present" in the Illinois State Senate effectively means "No", since a bill must get a certain number of "Yes" votes to pass.

2. Obama's "Present" votes were part of a plan supported by Planned Parenthood and several feminist organizations.

The idea that the "Present" votes imply a weak voting record is, again, a distortion, which has its origins in a Clinton campaign mailer from New Hampshire. Don't buy it.

[DoninJoisey]

I am so glad to read this. As a white male, I have been appalled by all the women I read of for Hillary "because she's a woman". How shallow is that?
I am not opposed to a woman president and agree sexist attacks are wrong, but to moon over "making history", just for the sake of making history, is equally wrong.

As examples, Condescending Rice and Nancy Pelosi, while not, in my opinion, presidential caliber, have risen to where they are on their own, not "in tow" of a mate, as Hillary. Does any feminist out there believe we'd be talking of Hillary Rodham if Clinton weren't the suffix?

I see this as a bid for a third Clinton term - something I do not feel we need. I do not see the remedy for republican spin and abuse as democratic spin and abuse.

There are some good republicans (Hagel, for example) and some bad democrats (do I count Lieberman as a democrat?), and the "war" between the parties is to the detriment of our country.

While McCain HAS "reached across the aisle", he's delusional about Iraq, has sold his soul for the nomination, and is frankly too old. Hillary even now only spews vitriol about republicans - calls Iraq "George Bush's war" - but she voted for it and continues to defend her vote, and puts republican's blood pressure near boil.

Obama is the clear choice for a CHANCE for change. It may not come about, but I, and MILLIONS of other Americans WANT CHANGE, and will grasp at the chance.

McCain and the Clintons offer NO HOPE of change.

[maggieb]

Isnt it shallow for blacks to vote for Obama because he is black? And what is your problem with her really? Admit it you are just a scared white man who fears being led by a powerful woman. Go get a pacifier, big baby. You hypocrite, you are not against her for the Irag war because you praise Condelizza Rice and she is ONE BIG proponent of the Irag war. Anyway keep drinking from the fountain of hope because, you are one who does need change.

[Fabienne]

Did you read DoninJosey's post at all? Your points don't make any sense in light of what he wrote.

[JLindsley]

Erin,

I am #50 on the list and I am sad about the level to which her campaign has sunk. She and her husband are destroying themselves with the vitriol and don't seem to realize that it is not helping either her candidacy or the Democratic party.

I hope she will rise above it and campaign on her own strengths demonstrating the leadership that she is touting in her quest for the Presidency.

Her campaign tactics, triangulation and downright falsehoods are valid reasons not to elect her to that office. It is Rovian.

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

not an easy decision for us because electing a woman President would be a cause for celebration in itself

That right there is why Hillary is still around although she is bankrupt in ideas and her voting record is decidedly anti-feminist. Feminists voting for a person simply because she has a vagina is why you don't get it and why people don't take you seriously. You do not vote for the President of the United States of America based on the sex of the candidate. That is an insult to true feminists and to all Americans. This woman does not deserve your vote. She voted to kill innocent Iraqis, she voted to leave your children behind, she voted to take your patriotic children's rights away and she voted to allow cluster bombing of other mother's innocent children. She is the ultimate non-feminist and yet you want to vote for her simply because she has a vagina? I don't get it.

[bauersox]

You know, Feminist #1085, your saying that Hillary Clinton ought to step down is not much different than my saying that you ought to shut up.

Real feminists aren't in such a big hurry to close down the marketplace of ideas -- especially while there's still plenty of daylight in the form of several major primaries, plus a criminal trial coming up, that just might change public opinion.

Women who think that others who don't agree with them should step aside aren't called "feminists." They're called "fascists."

[lynnn]

Yes it is.

[klmebane]

a fascist is someone who manipulates the system to FORCE someone to step down, not someone who verbalizes that they hold that opinion. which criminal trial do you speak of? cuz if its of those 6 detainees i have news for you. that isn't a trial, its a show with an already decided outcome.

it isn't a matter of hillary needing to step aside because people disagree with her, it is that she is not the best candidate. she is the business as usual candidate, whereas obama is the new way of doing business candidate. we see where business as usual has gotten us, and i've had enough of that, haven't you?

[bauersox]

I forgot to ask -- what makes *you* a feminist?
Just curious.

[bauersox]

1. A fascist is a person who thinks only one point of view is allowable. This writer doesn't have the power to force Clinton to step down.

2. The criminal trial I refer to is the Rezko trial, which will start during the first week of March. What six detainees are you talking about?

3. Some of us think Clinton is not only the best candidate -- she is the only one who is viable. We also think that Obama is such a poor candidate that having him as President is unthinkable.

4. "New" is not necessarily "better." Obama is the "throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater" candidate. You might as well nominate Brad Pitt -- their likelihood to succeed at the presidency is comparable.

5. The Rezko trial revelations are likely to show that Obama is a garden variety Cook County party hack. Speaking as an old-time Chicagoan, there's nothing "new" about that.

[Fabienne]

So interesting that the "incompetent" candidate can run so much better a campaign than the only "viable" candidate. I wonder how that comes to be considering Senator Clinton's vast knowledge, experience, and capability.

As for Rezko, it's all been out there for months. What, exactly, do you expect to be exposed? Something similar to what might be exposed if Senator Clinton released her tax returns or if the Clintons opened up the financial records to the Clinton library?