Why is NY NOW so Ticked at Teddy?

by Taylor Marsh

Boy, is NY NOW ticked off.

Sam Stein interviewed Marcia Pappas and she's not backing down one bit. You've seen the photos from last night's State of the Union, taken by AP's Ron Edmonds. It comes down to the matter of disrespect.

But to say that I have a very complicated relationship with NOW is an understatement. As full disclosure, I do not back or give money to NOW, Planned Parenthood or NARAL, though all three groups do more collectively for women than I will in a lifetime. I just find their militancy often very strident, with their expectations of Democratic candidates to genuflect to their agenda counterproductive.

As for NOW alone, I recall when I was 19, about to be 20, and I was at the Miss America Pageant. Coming out of my hotel one day I was confronted by a NOW spokeswoman and dozens of cameras and media. This was at the height of feminism when the revolt against traditional things women did was at a frenzy. The NOW girl got in my face to scream, "How can you demean yourself like this? You should be ashamed." To which I simply replied, "Do you want to pay for my college tuition?" Then off I walked to my limo, which then whisked me away to a pageant rehearsal. The truth is that without pageant scholarships I couldn't have gone to college; they begat other aid, on which I was completely dependent.

Yesterday, NY NOW came out with an obviously fervent statement that reveals real anger over Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama. It is more screed than press release. The passion is unmistakable. I will let you judge it for yourself.

"Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

"And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! 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 (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not "this" one). ... ..

I will say one thing about all this talk about Hillary Clinton being cast as "the past," which Kennedy did just today, and Obama does every day. As much as I respect Senator Kennedy, and I do to the foundation of his political passions and his legislative record, it's an insult of monumental proportions to all women to suggest that Hillary Clinton comes out of the past and represents something old.

If Barack Obama was a woman he wouldn't be getting the time of day. His young, new generational theme, if offered by a woman of similar age and inexperience, would be judged as almost cute.

It's taken a woman, Hillary Clinton, 35 years to get in the position to run for president, because anything less from a girl would be judged as insufficient for the position. Is there another woman in sight who could do it other than Clinton? Anywhere? The bar for women is higher, with experience and a real foundation of proof of worthiness a mandate for higher leadership, which can only be accumulated through effort and the passage of time. For commander in chief it gets even more difficult.

But by virtue of being a man, Barack Obama leaps across the experience threshold through his new generational change theme alone.

Any wonder why NY NOW is miffed?

I'm hearing from a lot of women (and men too, for that matter) who, as much as they respect and admire Teddy Kennedy, feel the same way.

What accomplishments put Barack Obama's "change" and "hope" agenda, not to mention his "let's make a deal" non-ideological style, above the years Hillary Clinton has dedicated to policies, change and her large substance advantage that has been proven in debate after debate? Flash can certainly top substance in the emotional arena of tapping into a voter's heart, but it certainly should have nothing to do with the person of experience being associated with "the past," when those years were required and have made the person in question more capable of doing the job.

No woman with Obama's credentials could possibly get the endorsement of Kennedy, Kerry, McCaskill, Leahy, et al, let alone the newspaper nods, because her very youth and inexperience would preclude the woman ascending to the same spot without more years under her belt.

Enter Hillary Clinton, with those years required by our society, and Kennedy and others are calling her the politics of the past. If so, then just when will a woman rise to meet the criteria? Talk about a leadership catch 22.

It took one woman working day after day over decades, plus having the connections of her husband, to get in the spot where she can have the opportunity to run for president, doing so in the midst of incredible odds, the worst press coverage ever, while everyone has decided to adorn the young man with little experience as the next possibility, because we have to turn away from the past. Tell that to the National Nurses Organization.

That "past" that Kennedy and others are encouraging people to walk away from is the very foundation on which Clinton has built a lifetime of service to prove she has the mettle to be president. It's the dues a woman must pay to get the chance to lead, because those dues are required of her. A standard to which her lesser accomplished male opponent is not being held.

No doubt Barack Obama is talented, having a gift of rhetorical flourish that any politician should admire, even covet.

Whereas Hillary Clinton, the woman who could only rise to the position she's now in to finally have an opportunity to compete did so through hard work over a lifetime, because youth alone for her, even if she had the gift of rhetoric, would be judged as insufficiently experienced to be president.

It's likely this tired old resume double standard that brought NY NOW's press release out without an edit. Because the very thing that makes Hillary Clinton qualified to be president is being pushed aside and called "the past." Let's face it, if Clinton was Obama in a dress, er, pantsuit, she wouldn't be getting the time of day, let alone Teddy Kennedy's endorsement.

Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh

Comments

[Malarcus]

Ms. Marsh says Hillary is not part of the past. Ms. Marsh is wrong. Prior to 8 years of DubyaCorp., we had eight years of Whitewater and Cigar-gate. Hillary was center stage for all of it. In the past 16 years, politics has become more vicious and divisive than at any time since the heyday of yellow journalism. Sen. Clinton has been center stage, or close enough to it, for all of it, and has, in fact, been a catalyst for some of it. The decision to push for the new guy, from my point of view, is a decision to move away the Bush/Clinton dynasty and see if we can move towards a more civil discourse and a new direction for the country. Hillary Clinton cannot make good on a promise of either of those things. Perhaps Obama cannot, either. We will not know until we know. However, one thing I do know for sure, is that under Obama (and hopefully Edwards) the new boss, who will undoubtedly be the same as the old boss (as is written in TheWhoteronomy 10:1), is at least a new boss.

We are tired of all that has happened over the last 2 decades and we want to move on. A vote for Hillary Clinton is not a progressive vote, first female president or not. I, for one, am not interested in making history if it means never learning from it.

[ZedLoch]

If Barbara Bush were running for President, would she get NOW's endorsement?

[Staying1776course]

As the first of the baby boomers, I feel marginalized by Obama. Does anyone remember old Reagan's "New Morning" speech? I don't get this age division at all except it's political ramifications. I know I'd make a much better president now at 61 than 15 years ago for the wonderful maturity, patience, and certainty of what's important that has come with age.

[Karoli]

If Barack Obama was a woman, I'd no more discount "her" than I do "him". It's disingenuous, whiny, and incredibly self-serving to claim that only a 60-year old woman could have credibility and a 46-year old woman would be viewed as 'cute'.

You do women no service by using this as your plank to claim that Hillary is discounted as 'old guard'. She IS old guard. But more than that, she's shown me that she won't rise above telling blatant lies to win at all costs. She didn't lose this woman's vote for any other reason than that. I do not want 4 years of backbiting and political gamesmanship, and that is why Hillary Clinton is no longer viable.

[cjo30080]

Taylor wrote, "Whereas Hillary Clinton, the woman who could only rise to the position she's now in to finally have an opportunity to compete did so through hard work over a lifetime, because youth alone for her, even if she had the gift of rhetoric, would be judged as insufficiently experienced to be president."

Contrary to the implication of this quote, Senator Edwards didn't say or imply that Senator Clinton represents the past because of her age. In fact, Clinton represents the past because of her militaristic votes and her gleefully divisive style of campaigning.

[JoDeeVa]

Much attention has been given to the Kennedys' endorsement of Barack Obama. Today, RFK's children have endorsed Hillary Clinton in the LA Times.

JFK's daughter/ brother are supporting Obama, because he is the "agent of change" in the same way JFK was. RFK's children are supporting Hillary Clinton, because she represents the ideals RFK fought for...
"Like our father, Hillary has devoted her life to embracing and including those on the bottom rung of society's ladder -- giving voice to the alienated and disenfranchised and working to alleviate poverty and injustice, while urging that we cannot advance ourselves as a nation by leaving our poorer brothers and sisters behind."

For me, the irony is rich. When RFK ran for President, he was denigrated as being a part of the establishment of JFK's administration. Eugene McCarthy was heralded as the "agent of change." I campaigned for both, eventually realizing that McCarthy could never beat Richard Nixon. I heard RFK's last speech at the Ambassador, the irony here being that Obama has managed to capture the eloquence & power, the ability to inspire, motivate with his words. That said, RFK spoke from a place of experience with both JFK & for standing with movements against poverty/ bigotry in the south to union movements with Cesar Chavez in California. He became the candidate for change that would move this country forward into the light, out of those dark places, as well as the darkest one in Vietnam.
These are the dichotomies that now envelope us with the dueling Kennedys for Clinton/ Obama. Neither should be able to exclusively claim the "change" label, when compared to JFK/ RFK.
I'm a John Edwards' supporter, but would welcome any of them as President. All would represent change from the current political landscape. All would bring their own experience with them to bring about that change!

I respect both RFK & JFK/ familys' service & contribution to the country, both bring heartfelt opinions to the debate.
Thanks, Taylor..as always, your post is thought-provoking! In my opinion however, neither the gender/race issue should be the decisive issue!

[ayc]

There you go again - "it's an insult of monumental proportions to all women to suggest that Hillary Clinton comes out of the past and represents something old." I am a women, I am very good at telling when I am being insulted. As a writer, I would think that you might be able to understand that the "old" is the pitting of group against group. Specifically in this case, gender against gender. I am not insulted, your lack of common sense insults me more.

[LAJonathan]

Why must we hypothesize? He endorsed Obama, not Hillary, now move on. Perhaps you should send Hillary a memo and let her know that by lying and misrepresenting herself in public for the world to see, that it may not be the best way to win this.

[knerd]

Dear Taylor Marsh,

I think you might be confusing what could be called "RESUME/EXPERIENCE" with "WTF !!!"

We have all exprienced the conflict of these two opposing categories in our own job-hunting history: the apparent "loser" seemingly getting preferential treatment at the interview while the most qualified applicant (usually ourselves!) is dismissed.

And it hurts.

What is different in this case is the other employees themselves are doing the choosing. The front office is outnumbered.

Democracy: messy, messy, messy.
Especially when it comes from the ground up rather than from the top down....

[westview]

This point is an interesting one, and there are a number of fair points in it. However, more interesting to me are the details of the "in house" politics of promoting Obama. I think considering all of that, my opinon of T.K. from what I have seen him do over the years has been solidly confirmed.

[DanO333]

As far as I am concerned, the most important quality that I look for in a potential presidential candidate is leadership. That’s a pretty general catch-all word, so let me be a little more specific. Leadership involves:

- Getting divergent groups together to accomplish a common task
- Inspiring and motivating
- Having a willingness to see alternate points of view, even when they conflict with one’s own
- Displaying unquestionable integrity

Okay, I could go on and on. But looking at those four “generally accepted” ideas on leadership, which candidate most embodies them? Which candidate, Republican or Democrat, man or woman, black, white, Latino or otherwise, displays the intangible qualities that are needed as the Leader of the Free World, if you’ll forgive the somewhat out-of-vogue colloquialism? Take a good look at all of the candidates and decide, and think for yourself for crying out loud!

I won’t tell you which candidate I’m backing, because that really isn’t relevant to my point and doesn’t change the truth of the matter. But I will say this: Usually we don’t have the option of picking anyone with these skills, because usually none of the candidates actually have them. This election, from my perspective, we actually have at least one.

[BigBen]

I find it sad that the first woman to have a chance being President, like all women who aspire to the top job, is being trumped by a trumped up male candidate.This may be women's only chance at the top job. Don't let the men take it away from you. Tell Obama to wait his turn like the women were just told by Ted Kennedy.I am male but am supporting my wife in this cause.

[jmsc1965]

What's wrong with this picture is too extensive to capture entirely. Indeed, the message is too confused and confusing for comprehension. That said, however, it does seem to reduce itself to "Hillary has worked very hard for 35 years -- as a woman -- to be in a position to become president and NOW she's entitled." And Ted Kennedy and any other white male who declines to support her -- as such an entitled woman -- is a traitor and an MCP. Poppycock!!

On no basis is anyone "owed" the presidency, black, female or otherwise. Moreover, her hard work and policy wonkery may make her a good Senator and perhaps even a good cabinet member, but they don't entitle her to the presidency. If we are lucky -- and one must emphasize both "we" and "lucky" -- we will find and elect a leader who is capable of inspiring and leading us. It is not a managerial position and it is not a position for which one can say "I am prepared and I am best qualified." One demonstrates one's qualifications, as Senator Obama is doing. Nor is Senator Clinton's effort to ride a wave of nostalgia for the 90s into office availing. Senator Kennedy fairly and -- in my humble opinion -- accurately framed that as "the candidacy of the past." Obama is the candidate of the future.

Sorry ladies, but all of that is fair and square and has nothing to do with gender. Hillary Clinton simply is not ready to be president and likely will not ever be.

[Rescisco]

That our next president will likely be a black male or a female is a potent symbol to the world and a defining moment in American history. As for Obama's success to this point, I would say something of a generational and and unique nature is taking place. It has more to do with the "moment" and less with the man perhaps, but America wants to be idealistic and new again. We have been battered by fear, incompetence, and outdated partisanship, for so long that it is as if we are collectively ready to ready to redefine ourselves and the aspirations we have for our country. That is a good thing. John F. Kennedy was of a new generation and an embodiment of things even he did not fully understand. The vigor and the crispness of his style expressed the newness that his generation was eager to pursue and that a tired nation needed. Obama, like JFK, is a politician trying to win an election. But he has also come to embody a newness that we yearn to pursue, even if it cannot be defined. Hillary may be as gifted, as intelligent, as capable as any national leader we have ever known. But this campaign may have caught her up in a force that she was not able to master as good fortune has smiled upon a new figure elevated by the irresistable and, I would say, corrective impulse that calls upon us to redefine and recreate ourselves. For better or worse, and for me he is an acquired taste, Obama may be the one the "moment" has selected his personal merits aside. A new America seems ready to be born and ready to proclaim a new identity based on the rediscovery of national will and the unfolding of destiny for a new generation. Black and female are not relative in this context. Clinton, Romney, McCain, all the rest are but a repetition of a past that has not yet happened. The movement toward Obama is about a tomorrow we are once again daring to dream.

[pbarba1969]

Don't think Uncle Teddy and the rest of the "Irish Mafia", Kerry and Leahy didn't cut a deal with Senator Obama to get their endorsements. I'm sure they have some pet projects they would love to push if he is elected. If they did it wouldn't bother me, because that is what happens in politics. The art of the deal. But it just makes me sick to hear these Obama supporters acting like St. Barack is above such things. He's a polititcian! Take off the rose colored glasses now so you won't be too disappointed if he is elected and can't walk on water....