NOW endorsed Hillary Clinton during the Primaries. They were one of the first groups to do so.

Kevin, Tina — the statements made about Obama in the OP are factual. I’m not sure what you feel is bashing. If anyone is being bashed, it’s a leader of an allegedly woman’s rights organization, refusing to support the first woman with a chance to be President when that woman happens to have the best record on women’s rights and a fairly similar record in other respects.

I think feminists can be Obama supporters, yes. But it’s entirely justified to suggest that for Keenan to take such a visible position given her particular position was selling out women.

Bashing? Accusing social-justice activists of “bashing” those in power is a trick old as dirt and just as low. It’s a label truly deserving of its own “Warning! Orwellian Language!” tag.

The commenter “Keisha” used it a few days ago in the no-apologies-no-comparisons-women-first thread. Now you’re reciting the same claim. Read the responses there, Tina.

President Obama is the leader of the “establishment”. Many people are dissatisfied with the established order relative to women’s rights. It is up to him to do things to win these people over, they are not obligated to take a “trust and not bother to verify” position regarding this administration.

It was at that moment when many of us realized that the abortion issue was toxic to the rest of the women’s agenda. And so it is for The New Agenda as well. Divisive, toxic, and off the table.

I just want to suggest that we be careful about overstating our position. As I understand it, our position is that we officially have no position. The New Agenda is an opportunity for women to form a new political alignment that isn’t divided by choice. But that doesn’t mean that any of us are abandoning our own beliefs about choice.

I am fervently pro-choice and always have been. I personally believe it is a core feminist issue. But, it’s not the only feminist issue. There are many, many problems and challenges that pro-choice and pro-life women can work together on, just as women who don’t even call themselves “feminists” can join with those of us who have been self-declared feminists for years. That’s why I’m here.

I can’t imagine what service it would provide the women and men who both write and blog here, for us to adopt a “political” motivation for our opinions rather than state what we honestly feel and think. We rarely all agree on any one position but we cannot even have a conversation if we censor our opinions with the prevailing political wind. Women and men who agree or disagree with Amy’s opinion of NARAL or NOW’s positions (without getting into choice specifically) can do so here freely, but only if someone is willing to bring the discussion up. Our members and bloggers are not stupid and I don’t think they would want any writer to put forth a “public” opinion that differs from her or his private opinion. That is dishonest. The point of this blog is for people who are interested in women’s rights to have an honest discussion of a wide range of relevant topics. You can’t have an honest discussion if you don’t start with an honest opinion. I have no interest in participating in a “yes” organization or blog. It bores me.

As to your final question, only the women and men themselves can decide if they wish to BE feminists or not, or to be CALLED feminists or not. We are not the arbiters of who is or is not a feminist or a women’s rights advocate. Every woman or man here is smart enough to make up their own mind about whether they feel someone is a feminist. Those who are aware of some of the history of feminist organizations will remember the tactics some have previously used. It was not uncommon for some to threaten to “take away your feminist card” if you do not lock-step with all of the group’s opinions. That is an unfair and frankly high-handed tactic and we are not that kind of group. We do not bully our members here.