Posted on 04/03/2007 6:41:41 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Interest group endorsements are critical to a primary campaign. Witness that all major Democrat hopefuls appeared at a construction-workers union conference last week, hoping to curry favor with big labor. The next day, Sen. Hillary Clinton returned to Washington to receive an endorsement from the National Organization for Women (NOW), another pillar of the liberal establishment. NOW's political action committee enthusiastically threw its weight behind Senator Clinton—the first woman with a seemingly real shot at the Presidency—and pledged to rally female voters across the country on her behalf.
NOW's "thumbs up" for Hillary is no surprise. Sen. Clinton's domestic policy agenda mirrors the organization's wish list. Both envision greater government involvement in nearly all aspects of life. NOW supports Hillary's 1994 vision of a government-run healthcare system, higher taxes, and more government regulation of the relationship between businesses and employees, from higher minimum wages to expanded family and medical leave benefits. And like Sen. Clinton, NOW opposes initiatives that give individuals more control of their lives, such as Social Security reforms that let workers own individuals personal retirement accounts or school choice programs that help low-income parents choose their children's school.
NOW agrees with Hillary that it "takes a village" to raise a child—or to care for an adult, for that matter. Sen. Clinton and her feminist sisters want the federal government to increase subsidies for daycare programs, boost spending for public education, further subsidize college tuition, mandate higher wages, provide healthcare throughout one's life, and provide generous income support during old age. In other words, they want Uncle Sam to be a cradle-to-grave caretaker.
Yet their similar visions aren't the real reason NOW is supporting Hillary. After all, the other leading Democratic candidates also pledge to push big government policies like Sen. Clinton. Both Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards arguably promise to be even more generous with taxpayer-funded programs. NOW has consistently opposed the Iraq war, joining with radical groups like Code Pink to sponsor numerous anti-war protests, while Senator Clinton has waffled between outright support for intervention in Iraq and tepid war critic. If policy principles were the only criteria, NOW likely would have sided with a different candidate.
NOW president Kim Gandy unabashedly ties her support for Sen. Clinton with her desire for a female President: "This is the legacy we can leave to our daughters and granddaughters: a dream realized and a new dawn for all who share the dream of equality and justice." NOW's PAC will now focus on its "Make History with Hillary" campaign, which will urge "women and men across this nation to stand up and say "I'm Ready for a woman president" and work to elect Senator Clinton.
NOW may be enthusiastic about the prospect of a woman president, but political handicappers shouldn't mistake NOW's endorsement of Senator Clinton as a proxy for American women. Few women share NOW's radical vision of greater government and few will cast their vote based on the candidate's gender.
A Harris poll found that Senator Clinton's support nearly evenly split between men and women, with 38 percent of women and 34 percent of men responding that they would vote for her. More men than women stated that they wouldn't vote for her, but still 45 percent of women have no intention of supporting the former First Lady.
Nine months before Iowa and New Hampshire's primaries, Sen. Clinton has many assets: she has a deep financial war chest, a seasoned political campaign staff and machine, near universal name recognition, and she now has a network of feminist activists working on her behalf. Yet she still has a long way to go before winning the presidency or winning the support of American women.
Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women’s Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.
I’ve read that the majority of the membership of NOW is lesbian, and I believe it. They don’t speak for real women.
Try 75%, and that was in 1991.
Like the ACLU, NOW is a small membership with a big PR department.
They supported an adulterer because he held the right position on abortion (imagine that, wanting to destroy any evidence or nagging reminders of illicit sex, never mind that is a PERSON).
Even IF you approve of Bill Clinton’s sexual liaison with an aide roughly his daughter’s age because it was consensual, you have to ignore 50 years of feminist rhetoric regarding sexual harassment in the workplace and sexual discrimination in the workplace. The feminist movement denounced the sexy secretary who’d f*** the boss in the office and on overnight “business” trips. How is Monica any different?
You have Monica’s testimony bought off (she was paid to lie under oath) with the exchange of a high paying job for which she was not qualified (she certainly has not risen to the same heights in industry now that she is out on her own).
You have Hillary being the “little woman” who stands by her (cheatin’) man just as she said she would NOT be during the 1992 campaign. Of course, Hillary was just lying. Theirs is an open relationship. It isn’t the affairs that p*** off Hillary, it is the carelessness with which Bill chooses his chippies and carries on indiscreetly.
Theirs is a marriage of conveniences. Neither can leave the other because they both know where the bodies are buried, so to speak. It is a Mexican standoff, each has dirt on the other. Married, neither can be compelled to testify against the other. Hillary wouldn’t be in contention for the DNC presidential nomination if people looked at just her qualifications, she has gotten where she is today because she is MRS. Bill Clinton. That doesn’t speak well of feminism. In the end, her husband is the reason for her success.
NOW is a bunch of bitter hags who do not speak for the betterment of women. They are socialists who seek to push a liberal agenda using the backs of women (and the crush and torn bodies of fetal babies) to get there. They are oppressors masquerading as liberators.
Ask Linda Tripp how much support they gave her for being a whistleblower. NOW didn’t even stand up when Linda was being savaged for her physical appearance. NOW is a hate group like the KKK. They are not an honorable organization and need to be labeled as such in schools.
thanks again for posting your royal heinousness in mega vision
They surrendered the cause of “womyn’s lib” when they backed the Clintons during impeachment.They supported an adulterer because he held the right position on abortion (imagine that, wanting to destroy any evidence or nagging reminders of illicit sex, never mind that is a PERSON).
Even IF you approve of Bill Clinton’s sexual liaison with an aide roughly his daughter’s age because it was consensual, you have to ignore 50 years of feminist rhetoric regarding sexual harassment in the workplace and sexual discrimination in the workplace. The feminist movement denounced the sexy secretary who’d f*** the boss in the office and on overnight “business” trips. How is Monica any different?
You have Monica’s testimony bought off (she was paid to lie under oath) with the exchange of a high paying job for which she was not qualified (she certainly has not risen to the same heights in industry now that she is out on her own).
You have Hillary being the “little woman” who stands by her (cheatin’) man just as she said she would NOT be during the 1992 campaign. Of course, Hillary was just lying. Theirs is an open relationship. It isn’t the affairs that p*** off Hillary, it is the carelessness with which Bill chooses his chippies and carries on indiscreetly.
Theirs is a marriage of conveniences. Neither can leave the other because they both know where the bodies are buried, so to speak. It is a Mexican standoff, each has dirt on the other. Married, neither can be compelled to testify against the other. Hillary wouldn’t be in contention for the DNC presidential nomination if people looked at just her qualifications, she has gotten where she is today because she is MRS. Bill Clinton. That doesn’t speak well of feminism. In the end, her husband is the reason for her success.
NOW is a bunch of bitter hags who do not speak for the betterment of women. They are socialists who seek to push a liberal agenda using the backs of women (and the crush and torn bodies of fetal babies) to get there. They are oppressors masquerading as liberators.
Ask Linda Tripp how much support they gave her for being a whistleblower. NOW didn’t even stand up when Linda was being savaged for her physical appearance. NOW is a hate group like the KKK. They are not an honorable organization and need to be labeled as such in schools.
There are more women in the NRA than NOW. Their endorsement of HR means little except to the old media.
I can believe it. The last NOW membership figure I heard was less than 130,000 dues-paying members. My church’s women’s organization has over a million in the U.S. and you may rest assured we aren’t aren’t voting for Ms. Rodham-Clinton. NOW doesn’t speak for us and doesn’t hold a candle to our voting power. The only thing NOW has is the attention of the media as designated spokesman (can I say that?) for U.S. women. It is a joke.
If NOW’s numbers are so low (130,000), why and I mean why do they have so much influence and get so much press???
Because it is the most vocal women’s group in politics, and because the media has anointed it the spokesgroup for women as a whole. NOW has been dying for a long time, it’s membership dropping, the magazine discontinued. It is a shell of itself but it survives because as soon as any women’s issue arises, it makes a statement on its own or the media rush to get an official reaction from the group.
There are other larger women’s group but they are not primarily political, and those that are political are generally deemed not “impartial”. Of course NOW has never been impartial but we are into the age of pretending so the media pretends it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.