I do believe I'm getting the vapors

[elfs]

So, let me get this straight. According to the National Organization for Women, if a woman is the frontrunner candidate, that's a great thing. Like all frontrunner candidates, however, she must defend her frontrunner status from all of her rivals. However, if she voluntarily gets on stage with her rivals, and they do what all rivals do in this circumstance, and she happens to be a woman (cue George Carlin asking, "Wait, where's the surprise?"), then it's a metaphorical psychological gang-rape and her rivals should all be beaten down for it.

Not done calling Obama and Edwards willful rapists, at least in their own minds, NOW has issued another press release calling Ted Kennedy's support for Barak Obama (who previously got 100% acceptability rating from NOW) "the greatest betrayal!" (Exclamation point in the original). They write, "We are repaid with his abandonment! He's picked the new guy over us." They go on:

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."

You have to love that us. I doubt Hillary perceives herself as part of them.

[Hat Tip: Hilzoy and Andrew Sullivan.]

Comments

[zonereyrie.livejournal.com]

Wow - that's WAY the hell out there on the loony fringe. So... since there is one woman candidate, anyone who doesn't support her doesn't support women at all. And anyone who dares fight against her, or favor another candidate, is attacking all women.

Uh huh... Shit like this makes me more likely to vote for anyone who *isn't* the candidate they're favoring.

[grian-ruadh.livejournal.com]

Hell, the Female Candidate being a confabulating container of excrement is enough all by itself to make me vote for someone else.

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

This was not issued by the National Organization for Women, but rather by the head of NOW New York State. It should be pretty clear from phrases like "gang bang" that this is not something that the national organization would have put out.

I would not be surprised if NOW issues some degree of repudiation and suspends or fires Ms. Pappas.

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

(And when you miss something obvious like that, Hilzoy and Andrew and Elf, it looks just a bit like you've got it in for NOW.)

[omahas.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I'm going to have to come down on you for that one. From NOW-NYS own website (under "About Us"):

"The National Organization for Women is a national organization with chapters in each of the 50 states. NOW is an activist rather than a direct services organization. This simply means that NOW seeks to effect change through lobbying, advocacy, education and protest, and does not serve clients. You can learn more about our work, and the history of the National Organization for Women at our national web site.

NOW-New York State (NOW-NYS) is the statewide Chapter of NOW in New York State. It is the largest women's political action organization in New York, representing over 14,000 women and men in 24 chapters. We are dedicated to fighting for women's equality and to improving the status of women in New York."

In other words, NOW-NYS is a chapter of NOW, and when NOW-NYS speaks, the nation perceives they are speaking as a member organization of NOW...as a spokeschapter. And when Pappas speaks out like that, she is speaking as a spokesperson for NOW.

Now, she may end up getting reprimanded...with an official apology from the National president of NOW, but considering that the first press release about the "gang bang" comment was issued January 11, and still no comment from the national organization president, I don't think you're going to hear anything from her about this either.

Further, the national president has already issued her own commentary about Ted Kennedy's endorsement. And no reprimand for Pappas.

You're not going to see a reprimand. Because I guess NOW thinks it's okay for member chapters to say what they think. Which, unfortunately, will lead to people looking upon them like this.

[pixel39.livejournal.com]

It's the sort of thing that makes me embarrassed to be a woman.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

More to the point, if you look at the date on the first press release, it was 17 days ago. The fact that NOW-NY felt comfortable jumping the couch again two weeks later only shows that the national organization doesn't feel enough discomfort at this ridiculous rhetoric to overcome institutional inertia and issue a corrective. NOW-NY speaks with the approval of NOW.

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

Well, it does look like you're right and they're not going to do anything about it; it has been out long enough and it's been put up in enough right-wing blogs that they have probably heard of it.

It still seems bogus to me to equate something batty a local chapter says with the official position of the national organization without even asking the national organization about it. I'm under the impression that Andrew Sullivan purports to be a journalist; he, at least, should know better.

[zonereyrie.livejournal.com]

omahas beat me too it. This was issued by the head of NOWNYS on 'official letterhead' as it were. And it has yet to be disavowed. To me that makes it an official statement by NOWNYS. And NOWNYS is a member of the national NOW organization, who also seems to have, as of yet, not disavowed the statements. So, until such time as they repudiate them, they stand as official statements by the NOW organization.

And I certainly would not take for granted that a phrase like 'gang bang' means it is not a NOW statement. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen deliberately inflammatory language from an activist group

If NOW does not agree, then they need to say so. If the VP of some corporate division went off the deep end and issued a press release talking about the great Zionist conspiracy or some such, you'd bet corporate HQ would trip over themselves in their haste to distance themselves from such comments - lest they be seen to agree with them.

[danceswithlife]

Jesus!...oh, wait...he's male and probably wouldn't support Hilary either.