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]

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.