It isn't often you'll find me defending Ted Kennedy, but is it really "betrayal" for him to endorse Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, as the New York chapter of NOW claims? (Via Ben Smith)
“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). ‘They’ are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.
“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.’”
So now it's sexist to support Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton?
Or is it only sexist to support Barack Obama if one has been sexist in the past, like Ted Kennedy? My head is hurting.
And what's with this overwrought rhetoric?: "And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment!" It sounds like something out of The Young and the Restless.
Look, folks: The way things are shaping up, we are likely to have a groundbreaking presidency no matter who is elected. Among the leading candidates are a woman, a black, a Mormon, a former Vietnam P.O.W. who would be the oldest president elected to a first term, and a a libertarian Republican (Ron Paul), who is not a frontrunner but who has garnered unprecedented levels of support.
For NOW to assert that it is "our obligation . . . to elect . . . a President that is the first women" just because a female Democrat has presented herself for election is surprisingly sexist and juvenile for an organization that has had plenty of years to mature. I've noticed that the individuals and groups that are in the vanguard of a movement often end up sounding behind the times 10 or 20 years down the road. They sometimes sound like throwbacks to an earlier era, and perhaps they are. They seem to be trapped by the era in which they began.
In any event, it is ridiculous to argue that Hillary Clinton must be elected because she is female, just as it would be silly for Obama supporters to argue that it is "our obligation . . . to elect . . . a President that this the first African American." Using NOW's brand of "logic," it would be racist to support anyone but Barack Obama. Take that, NOW! ("And now the greatest betrayal! African Americans are repaid with NOW's abandonment!")
It is the content of the a candidate's character and the viability of their ideas that will make or break their presidency, and the nation. The content of a candidate's character and the viabilty of their ideas should obviously be the focus of appeals for votes.
Of course, if a politician's character and the viability of their ideas were important to NOW, it wouldn't care who Ted Kennedy endorses.
____________________________________
Update: Jay D. Homnick sees something else going on here: A painful snub of Hillary Clinton by the Kennedy Keepers of the Flame of Camelot -- especially Caroline Kennedy and Ted Kennedy. Perhaps Hillary Clinton's loss of an imagined connection to John F. Kennedy's legacy, rather than the loss of Ted Kennedy's endorsement per se, is what's really gnawing away at NOW. Here's an excerpt from Hormnick's take:
You know the old joke. Sam is attracted to Bernice, and tries to tempt her by speaking of his family's wealth. "My father is almost ninety," he says. "And when he passes on I stand to inherit a hundred million dollars."
Sure enough, the lure proved irresistible. Before a month had passed she was hooked. A Las Vegas wedding was celebrated and then it was official... Bernice was now Sam's stepmother.
Something of the sort has happened to Hillary Clinton. She told the Democratic Party that the time had come for a new generation, a fresh vision of governance, a horizon of hope, a passion for progress. They listened attentively and decided to take her at her word... so they voted for Barack Obama, who looks to be a better bet to deliver those things. Or at least the Democrat version thereof.
She still may win, if the current poll numbers hold. But the romance, the panache, the cachet, the aura, the halo, the laurel, the tiara, the luster, the sizzle are all gone. They were rudely confiscated by Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, and then Uncle Edward Kennedy, Senator from Mass., joined in stomping on the last few flowers. These Kennedys branded Hillary, even if she prevails, as an old school rough-and-tumble machine pol who symbolizes no ideal beyond that of personal ambition.
All this began on Sunday, when the New York Times ran an essay by Caroline Kennedy saying she would support Obama because he was capable of inspiring a generation to great heights in a manner reminiscent of her late father.
Clearly she is on to something. Obama can inspire people to avoid buying health insurance and count on wealthy people being taxed by the government to pay for their care. He can inspire young people to attend university for free on the public dime. In fact, he can inspire each of us to ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. How is that for coming full circle? . . . .
Think of the sting in this rebuke of the Clintons in general and Hillary in particular. How extraordinarily pedestrian do you have to be to render the idea of your being the first female president uninspiring?
Reading further in Ms. Kennedy's monograph we find her seeming to throw a sop to Hillary when she says that the stands of both candidates on the issues are equally strong. On the surface, she is complimenting Hillary but in the subtle cutting way that the rich wound each other without overt attack, this actually makes her snub of Hillary more painful. If you disagree with someone's ideas, that's tolerable. But saying this is really cold: "Even when you present the set of ideas I would consider exciting, you cannot stimulate me to inspiration."
Yet her most ruthless stab is reserved for Bill Clinton himself, nominally not the candidate but merely an enthusiastic spouse. Caroline's last paragraph gives Bill the coup de grace: "I never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president -- not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."
Decoded that reads: "Bill Clinton met my father in the White House and built his entire life around the dream of becoming president and inspiring people the same way. Instead he got to the White House and laid a large egg. The last thing I need is for Mrs. Egg to take over. Now this Obama, he is a different story. He just might be the guy."
There was no reason for her to add that line. It was a gratuitous swipe, not terribly gracious by any standard. She could have backed Obama, she could have labeled him inspiring, she could have compared him to her father, all without adding that she has "never" had a president to inspire her and "for the first time" she believes she has found the man who could be that president. Her endorsement of Obama echoes loudly, but her repudiation of Bill Clinton is shrieking into the night.
Wow. Maybe there's more drama here than I realized. Who needs The Young and the Restless when you 've got the Democratic primary to watch? It's the Ultimate Showdown of Extreme Identity Politics. Pass the popcorn!
Comments