The New Agenda responds to NOW endorsement
September 20, 2008
by Violet Socks, Editor
|The Washington Post headline reads: Women’s Group Condemns NOW Endorsement of Obama.
Okay, that’s putting it a bit harshly. We’re not condemning NOW; we’re raising our collective eyebrow in puzzlement. (But other than that, it’s a great piece. Thanks, Garance Franke-Ruta!)
Here’s the full text of our press release:
The New Agenda responds to NOW Endorsement
Sept. 19, 2008 – The New Agenda, a non-partisan women’s advocacy organization, recognizes the decades of worthy work and achievement by the National Organization for Women. But The New Agenda is concerned that NOW’s recent endorsement of Barack Obama leaves many women in this country out in the cold.
This precedent-setting move marks the first time in NOW’s 42-year history that it has endorsed an all-male ticket.
Since its founding in 1966, NOW has endorsed only five presidential candidates:
1972 Shirley Chisholm for President
1984 WalterMondale/Geraldine Ferraro for President/Vice President
2003 Carol Moseley Braun for President
2008 Hillary Rodham Clinton for President
2008 Barack Obama/Joseph Biden for President/Vice President
The New Agenda co-founder Amy Siskind says, “We find it quite perplexing that NOW has chosen this moment to endorse an all-male ticket.” The endorsement seems all the more puzzling given the fact that the Republican Party is running its first female candidate for Vice-President, Gov. Sarah Palin, and the Green Party is fielding its first all-woman presidential ticket with Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente.
“Women need to stand together and help one another,” says Siskind. “Women’s issues such as unfair pay, domestic violence, and unpaid leave impact women of all political parties.”
The New Agenda is a not-for-profit organization and will not be endorsing a candidate in the presidential election.
The group is in talks with representatives from both Senator Obama’s and Senator McCain’s campaigns about the platform of women’s issues it wants to see addressed.
The New Agenda has also requested a meeting with Gov. Sarah Palin to discuss the group’s platform.
Jennifer Borg, another co-founder of The New Agenda, says, “We want to give Sarah Palin a chance to tell us what Sarah Palin believes on women’s issues.”
###
It make sense for Washington Post to interpret your Sept. 19 news release as “Women’s Group Condemns NOW’s Endorsement of Obama.” What concerns me is that The New Agenda does not see the partisan/bias in your news release and writings.
If the intention is to be truly nonpartisan, then please make sure that The New Agenda’s official news releases, goals, etc. actually reflect nonpartisanship.
This is a partisan statement (from news release):
“NOW’s endorsement of Barack Obama [all-male ticket] leaves many women in this country out in the cold.”
A nonpartisan approach would be:
“NOW’s endorsement of Obama raises interesting points on advancing women’s issues. It is not straight forward or easy answer. The Dem/Rep/Green Parties have mixed offerings. On one hand……”
You could continue by presenting the pros/cons of the Presidential/VP candidates. For example, McCain who has a terrible record in advancing women’s issues, but picked Palin as VP. Obama has a strong record in advancing women’s issues but all male ticket.
I ask The New Agenda leaders to be honest with yourselves on the nonpartisan stance annd what The New Agenda really wants to achieve. If you want to bash Obama/Dems, go ahead, just be honest about it. If you want to be nonpartisan, then your actions must support it. Right now, it looks partisan to me and others (like Washington Post).
NOW is just women who want to join the upper-middle class white male Whole Foods Nation.
Keiko – how is NOW supposed to have a women’s movement when they don’t represent women? Such hypocrasy! Male candidate? Women’s organization? They should have sat on the sidelines if they weren’t biased. Just my two cents!
Keiko, since we’re non-partisan, we don’t feel compelled to bend over backwards to justify NOW’s endorsement of the all-male Democratic ticket.
NOW has never endorsed an all-male ticket before. Speaking as someone who’s been a feminist since before the 1972 Democratic Convention, I’m keenly aware of what a stunning departure this is for NOW. Many women are shocked.
Obama’s strong record on women’s issues? This deserves its own press release because he really has no record.
Keep up the clear speak in your releases, Editor. Thanks for what you are doing with this site.
I am not saying that The New Agenda needs to justify NOW’s endorsement. I am saying that TNA needs to present itself in a nonpartisan and fair manner.
NOW’s endorsement is an opportunity for discussion. Some are shocked while others applauded the endorsement. It is incumbent upon The New Agenda to present all of these points of view respectfully and without judgement.
Again, I implore you to take a step back and really look at your statements, your goals, and how The New Agenda would like to proceed. Do you really wish to foster discussion on all sides? It does not feel that way by the responses to my postings from Violet and Dawn.
NOW endorsed an all-male ticket. It doesn’t matter they’re Democrats. What matters is it’s the first ticket they endorsed without a woman.
“women’s groups” and the DNC are faced with Palin because of their lack of support to Sen Clinton in their failure to address the misogyny of the primary. The DNC created the climate for that selection by Mccain. Clinton wasn’t considered worthy of feminist support – will there ever be a women candidate good enough for them?
I wonder if Rahm still thinks I might sit this one out and work on my knitting.. I’m not anyone’s sweetie!
Although the most acute judges of the witches and even the witches themselves, were convinced of the guilt of witchery, the guilt nevertheless was non-existent. It is thus with all guilt.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
“OK”
This is the problem we have, NOW needs a message sent to them that they dropped the ball, and there organization has made it clear they have lost there focus, But on the other hand the “The New Agenda” is addressing NOW endorsement…
“LOOK”
Democracy In Suffrage
mission statement has said it all, we are the new deal, cause we address sexism misogyny, on the first sentence of the mission statement. If we as women of the United States of America, if we keep dancing around what the reality is, then we will never get taken serious. We need warriors, we need to stop this mandy pandy pandering. This is what wrong, we need to, as in Women’s right are Human Rights, We need to quit cow towing to society, and say enough is enough. We need to shout from the roof tops foul.
Here is what we need to do, NOW needs to have there coffers smacked, ie no money will change there tune. Second NOW never properly address the misogyny in the primary, but got up in arms over the cover of a magazine with Obama and his wife. They need a reality check. I support any organization that supports women, but look at there little July get together in Washington, did they have a large celebration for the anniversary of Seneca Falls Convention. “Nope it got an honorable mention, as a woman’s group it should have centered around that. If it was not for Lucretia Coffin Mott, or Elizabeth Cady Stanton where would we be NOW, pardon the pun…
Let’s as Women ( Suffragettes ) & Men of Honor address this how it is…
NOW has turned there backs on Women, because of a few issues, instead of focusing on the whole picture. NOW has lost there focus, and ride on as being one of the first. “NOW” needs to be debunk and scraped until they come up to page…
I am leaving NOW & Forever…
Democracy In Suffrage & The New Agenda
Let’s carry it across the finish line…
Keiko said: “Again, I implore you to take a step back and really look at your statements, your goals, and how The New Agenda would like to proceed. Do you really wish to foster discussion on all sides?”
You’re right, this WOULD be a “step back.” You’re conflating non-partisan and “never taking any sides.” Non-partisan simply means not endorsing a particular party. Women have every right to take sides, and it’s a bit suspicious to me that you would suggest that as a women’s group, we should wishy-washily refuse to do so. It’s not contradictory at all to be non-partisan and also to feel NOW departed from its previous track record for this endorsement.
Even if NOW did not wish to endorse an anti-choice ticket, they could have passed on endorsing the side opposite that which has a woman on ticket. Since on many occasions they have not endorsed, this would have been entirely appropriate.
As a woman who is also a proffesional, I am all for complete equality for women in and outside of the workplace. However, I do not think that now is the time to press women’s issues. We have extraordinarily pressing problems in the world and in this country that need to be addressed. And that is why NOW endorsed Mr. Obama for POTUS. We are all human before we are female or male, aren’t we? The human issues need to be addressed first, or we will all lose. I fully believe that NOW is thinking of the future for all of us by endorsing Mr. Obama, which is the utterly responsible action to take at this particular point in time.
It’s mind-boggling that NOW would endorse a candidate who pays his female staffers, on average, about $10,000 less than his male staffers. And…doesn’t endorse a candidate who pays his female staffers just about the same, if not more, than his male staffers.
I don’t get it.
If one’s advocacy of women is based solely on the sex of the candidate, then I question The New Agenda’s basic premise. If you look at the Democratic and Republican presidential and vice presidential tickets in terms of their support of issues of importance to women (freedom of choice, equal pay – to name just two), then NOW”s endorsement makes perfect sense. How any thinking, aware woman can support Sarah Palin is beyond comprehension – she may be female, but she does not support any of the issues of importance to the equal rights of women. Let’s not let our anatomy get in the way of our brains – men do enough of that already.
Lassair,
If NOW and NARAL addressed the misogyny in a timely fashion, Obama wouldn’t be losing the election.
Jill,
Let’s give Sarah Palin a chance to tell us what her view is on women’s rights. She is a self described feminist. She has yet to weigh in on many important women’s issues.
The New Agenda, as described on this website, is not taking a view on the choice argument.
If you are looking as to whether a woman is for or against women’s rights on that one issue, I suggest you support Planned Parenthood. The New Agenda is a big tent and we welcome women and men of all beliefs.
Amy
P.S.: I do have a brain in my head – and I happen to like Gov. Palin and I respect what she has accomplished – how could you not?
I’m delighted that The New Agenda has taken this position–the position that NOW would have taken a few decades ago when it was representative of women and not some false “progressive” ideology.
By endorsing Obama, NOW has turned a deaf ear to the ceaseless sexism and misogyny that began in the primary and was never repudiated by the Obama campaign, indeed evidence indicates Obama perpetuated it.
I joined now in the early 70s, about the same time I joined the Democratic Party. Neither seem to represent me, as a woman, in 2008. It is disheartening.
In a post-Margaret Thatcher era, with Condoleezza Rice taking the record to new depths (can we please remember for a moment that in only one of the bloody wars that this country is waging – the illegal occupation of Iraq – more than 600.000 people have already lost their lives?), (and let’s not forget about Lynddie England) it should be clear by now that ‘being a woman’ holds no guarantee whatsoever for just and emancipatory politics, let alone feminist politics.
It really is with utter surprise and ‘raising of the eyebrows’ that I just came across your shallow, empty, and political irresponsible identity politics of the most silly kind. If feminism is going through some trouble today, it has much to do with this line of ‘politics’ (which in fact is destructive for progressive politics). What about looking out for (and creating) feminist politics, and not a set of biological criteria (breasts and vaginas) and presumed universal solidarities (‘what women do, benefits women’). Wait, let me guess, the next step in your reasoning will be that if Israel has a female prime minister, the occupation of Palestine is less worrisome, and it might even be a good thing for Palestinian women. Ay the pitiful state of US (identity) politics…
I think it was very disingenuous of NOW to endorse an all-male ticket the year the Republicans have nominated their first woman VP.
And to claim this has something to do with equal rights for women, when Obama has such an abysmal record on the equal pay issue? This adds insult to injury. (McCain pays the women on his staff equally, Obama does not.)
I used to be a member of NOW, many years ago. I even volunteered at the local office. NOW is now dead to me. I will never give them money or my support ever again because of this betrayal.
I don’t think all women need to love Sarah Palin. But the extent to which women on the left have demonized her…well, it’s gone too far. Come 2012, should Palin be running for president, if Hillary’s not on the Democrats side, I’ll probably vote for Palin just out of principle at that point. This is how deeply disturbed I am by the far left right now.
Hillary or Bust, do you have any information to back that up, or are you just going by the smear article that talked about the average pay of women vs the average pay of men on Obama’s staff? If you want to complain about something, your comlaint should be that he has more men in top positions on his staff than women. Not that he is paying people differently for the same work, which the averages don’t tell us.
BTW, the fact that NOW has endorsed a ticket with no women is an indicator of just how bad they think a McCain administration will be for women.
They are right. The liberal wing of the Supreme Court has four justices, the youngest of them is 69, the oldest is 88. The right to abortion is one vote away from being overturned. In fact, given the type of people McCain is likely to appoint, it is very likely one vote away from being banned by the Supreme Court. All they have to do is declare that fetuses have human rights from the moment of conception and suddenly any law that allows abortion would be unconstitutional.
It is very likely the next President will replace at least two, possible all four liberal justices (and possibly Scalia if his health declines). If that President is McCain, we’ll be lucky if women still get to leave the house when pregnant.
And I suppose NOW felt MUCH more comfortable with George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004? Yet, they did not endorse Gore or Kerry.
That is just hogwash and you know it Meredith.
Obama was a total sexist during the primary.
Of all the male tickets to endorse. What a joke!!!
Perhaps the fact that George Bush appointed paleoconservatives to the Supreme Court who have already reduced women’s rights showed them exactly what a mistake it was to not endorse Gore or Kerry.
Perhaps they think that women should be allowed to choose whether to carry their rapist’s baby to term, unlike Gov. Palin and unlike the people John McCain will put on the Supreme Court if he is elected.
Or maybe it was because they had already endorsed Hillary in the primaries and once they had started endorsing in the election, they thought they should keep endorsing the best candidate for women’s rights in that election.
Or perhaps they feel that it was in the interests of women to counter the “Judas goat” that is Sarah Palin.
Fascinating thing, the Judas goat. It is a goat that has been trained to go calmly into a slaughterhouse. The other goats follow its lead, despite the smells and the sounds that should tell them something is up. The Judas goat walks out of the slaughterhouse, the goats that followed it….don’t.
Perfect analogy for Sarah Palin. A woman who the Republicans hope will lead other women to ignore their own interests in favor of following someone just because she is a woman.
Or maybe NOW just thinks John McCain would be even worse for women’s rights than George Bush.
You know, John McCain, who cheated on his first wife with a younger woman for six months before leaving her (his wife, that is), who called his wife a “c***” and a “trollop” in public when she made a comment about his thinning hair, who made a “joke” about a woman enjoying getting beaten half to death and raped by a gorilla during a speech when he was first running for the Senate (and no, I am not making that up). How made a joke about Chelsea being ugly because “Janet Reno is her father”.
And you think Obama is the one who is sexist?
[...] The New Agenda questioned why this is the first all-men ticket that NOW has endorsed: The New Agenda is concerned that NOW’s recent endorsement of Barack Obama leaves many women in this country out in the cold. [...]
So why aren’t you talking to McKinney/Clemente about their stand on women’s issues?
We are in the process of setting up a meeting with the Green Party.
If your organization want to see more conservative justices on the US Supreme Court, continue to criticize women who choose to support Sen. Obama. Please remember, not only women support women’s rights. I look at the candidate as a whole, not just his/her gender!
ram
God, Meredith, give it a rest. Your bot talking points are so very dated. “Judas Goat?” That’s it….keep insulting and villifying. Let me know how that works out for you come November 4th. PUMA
Thanks for giving us ex-Dem, ex-NOW members a place to go. I proudly support “The New Agenda” and applaud you for your stance in the Wash Post against NOW’s shocking endorsement of Obama/Biden.
I remind our friends at NOW that blind loyalty has not worked very well for advancing women’s causes. I own my vote and Obama has not earned my vote, regardless of what NOW says.
Jill and Sara,
Madameb’s The 30 Percent Solution about Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney’s book, “Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated.”
Just a note: The Washington Post story currently has 816 comments.
I unsubscribed to NOW and attached a stong letter in opposition to their endorcement of Barak Obama. My problem with their endorsement is not that it was an all male ticket, if the ticket were Biden/Kucinich that would be fine. Joe Biden is responsible for the violence against women act. But Barak Obama is no friend to women. He mocked Hillary Clinton in a very sexist manor and never tried to stop the outragous sexism directed at her through the media, the DNC, his campaign and his friends, Rev. Wright and Rev. Pfleger. Barak Obama joyfully benefited from the most vulgar kind of sexism intended to destroy his political opponant and this is the second time he through a woman under the bus to get elected (Alice Palmer) who tryed to run against him for the IL state Senate;
Just to let you know, I have dissented.
“Wait, let me guess, the next step in your reasoning will be that if Israel has a female prime minister, the occupation of Palestine is less worrisome, and it might even be a good thing for Palestinian women.”
Saralotta, the Palestinian women have a lot more problems than Israelis. Living with a mindset that practices gender apartheid, for one. Embracing a religion that teaches them if their sons martyr themselves they get glory in heaven…ie, children to rape for eternity. All religions’ ideas of heavens are dubious, but I side with the Dutch cartoonist who joked “Stop! Heaven’s running out of virgins!” The problems of Islamic women will continue as long as we pretend to “respect” a religion that treats them as chattel both on earth and in “heaven.”
But in the Whole Foods Nation is it heresy for me to say so, while it’s a-ok to pick Sarah Palin’s bones clear over her religious beliefs, which she has shown to keep separate from her governing.
Feminism has lost its relevancy, thanks in part to moribund groups such as NOW and NARAL. Feminism these days is stuck in academia and the fauxgressive left which has taken over the DNC. As Zee points out it has become politically incorrect for feminists to speak out against the plight of women in Islamic societies.
I drifted away from NOW over the years and have let NARAL know that they won’t be getting any further contributions from me due to their endorsement of Obama during a critical time in the primaries (when Hillary was embarrassing him by winning big states so the pressure mounted for her to drop out.)
I welcome The New Agenda.
I agree. NOW has been too critical and down right condemning of women whose viewpoint differs from their own. Furthermore, I remember when NOW started off in the 70′s and always thought that they had a hard line viewpoint, but there was no one else so many were forced, like it or not, to just settle.
Now on hind sight, many of us realize that it was the wrong thing to do, but we thought we were doing the right thing in supporting of NOW since they are an organization of women. However, time has shown that NOW has not reciprocated.
I strongly believe that their lack of reciprocation and support for all women is one of the reasons we have not achieved that which we should have, could have and would have.
Moving on, I do not condemn NOW. I would like them to learn from past mistakes and I so welcome becoming a part of THE NEW AGENDA.
i have also taken links off my site that supported NOW. After what the dumbocratic party did to Hillary, how cold they suport Obama?
also it is a fact that senator mcCain’s female staff are paid higher than Obama’s staff.
I applaud The New Agenda and bravo to Dr. Violet Socks for her post. It is unfathomable that women continue to believe that any one party has our agenda on its Agenda!
No one party can afford to ignore women’s voices. The entrenched misogyny in all political parties is a fact that needs to be addressed by strong female voices, irrespective of their party affiliation. The media misogynist frat-boys, with a tremendous assisst from the Obama campaign, and from Sen. Obama’s own camouflaged misogyny (“Obama Gives Finger to Hillary” mega-hit) pushed a smugly anorexic resume to the top of the interviews file! The systemic sexism of the media has blurred its vision to the point where women candidates are degraded, demoted, demeaned and diminished with the blessings of women whose vision has been blurred by Obamyopia. Unfortunately, this election offers no dilemmatic angst. The choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumbo means that, once again, women’s voices are silenced by a deeply misogynist media and a “Democratic ” campaign that has consistently and dangerously refused to respect and acknowledge the historic candidacy of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Come November, the millions of cracks on the ceiling that obamyopics have tried to plaster over will be shattered in an unprecedented way. Periodically, then, Sen. Obama will feel down as result, and launch attacks against the women whom he thought he’d “win over easy”–knowing that he’ll just have to “get over it”!
Keiko said: “Do you really wish to foster discussion on all sides?”
Keiko – Respectfully, I personally don’t want to “foster discussion” about whether it is ok to subjugate women, engage in misogyny, demean women, pay them less, threaten them with their personal physical, professional and spiritual rights and choices and all the other topics that women have been dealing with for thousands of years.
WHY ON EARTH are these issues STILL issues? What is it about people in general, men, other women, cultures, religions and political leanings that give them the right to continually force women into a subservient position?
It is time to “just say no” and make it stick. Enough is enough.
I would hope TNA will keep this as the forward thought within this organization and maintain the pressure in the place this practice is underscored the most: In the Media.
The fact that there is a need for TNA simply underscores just how far we have yet to go.
Those of you who are of the opinion we should be supporting Sen. Obama’s ticket have not paid very close attention to how Sen. Clinton was treated. Have you watched Gigi Gaston’s Documentary http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm
It goes into extensive detail as to HOW OBAMA cheated his way into the Dem. Nomination. How he stole that nomination from a WOMAN … a chance for the very first woman we’ve had to become President of the United States.
I don’t want to hear any one of you complain about Woman’s rights if you can’t even cry foul to the crime that took place to a WOMAN. Grow up. Look at what Obama and his TEAM (as they call themselves) have done and what they will do to our country. Have you not seen his comments towards WOMEN? That’s OK sweetie, do you know his record on paying his female staff? … Way below what the men are paid …. Get a grip ladies.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...