N.O.W. says Ted Kennedy guilty of "the ultimate betrayal"!!!

I have to admit I will probably be voting as a single issue voter in the fall, much to my dismay. But generally I am against single issue voting.

My issue is that they are not a republican, have had enough of them for a while.
 
Onceler said:
Yeah, we've have this conversation, and we disagree.

I doubt that any woman is voting for Hillary STRICTLY because she's a woman, but really, if that is the ONLY reason, it is a very bad one. Would that same woman vote for, say, Condi Rice, if she was running against someone like Edwards...simply because she's a woman?

Sorry. Too many issues at stake. I understand the plight of the woman, and all that, but the idea of voting gender REGARDLESS is crazy.
Click to expand...

No, most would put party first, because there is an ideology there, and it’s not expressed in right wing thought at all. But as Democrats first, and then as women, it makes total sense to pick Hillary. She’s highly qualified to do this job. Highly qualified. If you don’t really understand about her war votes, or how more likely she is than other democrats to get us into another war(but still less likely than the republican candidates), there is absolutely nothing wrong with, or stupid about, voting for her because you’d like to be around for the first woman President of the United States. It’s inspiring and truth be told, you can’t say how many lives just that simple fact would change, anymore than we can say how many lives Obama being president would change just because he’s black. But I’d wager it’s going to be a lot.

Imagine, a society where more black males are in prison than are in college, and the unemployment rate for black men is through the roof, and a black man becomes President of the United States

You can’t tell me that’s nothing, because it’s something, and we don’t even know how much of something. What we do know is; it changes everything.
Now, we can’t talk about this much because that plays into making Obama “the black candidate” and he is not that, and I think that is obvious. But that’s there Onceler, and it’s historic and it’s moving in a big way. You have to be moved by that.
 
Darla said:
No, most would put party first, because there is an ideology there, and it’s not expressed in right wing thought at all. But as Democrats first, and then as women, it makes total sense to pick Hillary. She’s highly qualified to do this job. Highly qualified. If you don’t really understand about her war votes, or how more likely she is than other democrats to get us into another war(but still less likely than the republican candidates), there is absolutely nothing wrong with, or stupid about, voting for her because you’d like to be around for the first woman President of the United States. It’s inspiring and truth be told, you can’t say how many lives just that simple fact would change, anymore than we can say how many lives Obama being president would change just because he’s black. But I’d wager it’s going to be a lot.

Imagine, a society where more black males are in prison than are in college, and the unemployment rate for black men is through the roof, and a black man becomes President of the United States

You can’t tell me that’s nothing, because it’s something, and we don’t even know how much of something. What we do know is; it changes everything.
Now, we can’t talk about this much because that plays into making Obama “the black candidate” and he is not that, and I think that is obvious. But that’s there Onceler, and it’s historic and it’s moving in a big way. You have to be moved by that.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's cool. It's funny, and I'm not saying this to be PC or to try to prove that I'm color-blind, but when I see Obama, I never think 'black candidate.' The only time I think of it is when the media talks about it, which is always.

With Hillary, I see a Clinton much more than I see a 'woman candidate.' People can believe or disbelieve me when I say I'd have no problem puliing the lever for a woman I believed in; I just don't believe in her.

Just as a side note, I think the glass ceiling for women is a lot higher than it is for blacks, in education and in business, and even in politics to a certain extent.

I think my comments were more in response to someone going so far as to think it's a "betrayal of women" not to support her, and take issue with people who don't, simply because we NEED to elect a woman now, immediately, and it doesn't matter who it is. Perhaps a bit hasty, as I then figured out that this is not at all representative of NOW, and that this thread was pretty much bogus from the start.

But yeah - I do know what you're saying, and if Hillary is elected in November, that is the one thing I would probably find some excitement in, because it would be an otherwise drab day for me...
 
Onceler said:
Yeah, it's cool. It's funny, and I'm not saying this to be PC or to try to prove that I'm color-blind, but when I see Obama, I never think 'black candidate.' The only time I think of it is when the media talks about it, which is always.

With Hillary, I see a Clinton much more than I see a 'woman candidate.' People can believe or disbelieve me when I say I'd have no problem puliing the lever for a woman I believed in; I just don't believe in her.

Just as a side note, I think the glass ceiling for women is a lot higher than it is for blacks, in education and in business, and even in politics to a certain extent.

I think my comments were more in response to someone going so far as to think it's a "betrayal of women" not to support her, and take issue with people who don't, simply because we NEED to elect a woman now, immediately, and it doesn't matter who it is. Perhaps a bit hasty, as I then figured out that this is not at all representative of NOW, and that this thread was pretty much bogus from the start.

But yeah - I do know what you're saying, and if Hillary is elected in November, that is the one thing I would probably find some excitement in, because it would be an otherwise drab day for me...
Click to expand...

If you mean that the glass ceiling is higher for woman, in the sense that they have it better than African Americans, I totally agree Onceler. I would go so far as to say, that right now, Obama’s election would be more influential than electing a woman.

I really have not factored any of this into my choice because I just really wanted the most liberal candidate, policy wise. I’m just saying that I do get it, and I get it with women and Hillary too.

And I don’t doubt for one moment that you would vote for a woman, seriously.
 
Sorry to rain on your backslapping parade, but you folks really ought to at least TRY to come up with some evidence that the post is a "lie". Or is it a "lie" in the sense that George Bush's statements about Saddam having WMDs, backed up almost unanimously by reports from every adviser, politcal figures from both sides of the aisle, evidence from intelligence services around the world, etc., was a "lie" since somehow he knew all those people were wrong, too?

Here's a newswire service that published the original article, with the NOW-NY logo and the name of its apparent author, Marcia Pappas.

http://readme.readmedia.com/news/sh...nding-for-Hillary-Clinton-for-President/53725

Marcia Pappas is indeed the head of the NY state chapter of NOW, and is reportedly the one who wrote that statement about Kennedy's "betrayal". A writer for the Politico (Ben Smith) published the statement (as people all over the country are apparently doing), and he says he personally confirmed the story with her.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/NY_NOW_Betrayal.html

Looks so far like the statement is true. I called the numbers listed on the wire service. One is constantly busy, the other gets you to a voicemail service, with a gravelly woman's voice identifying herself as Marcia Pappas. I left an appropriate message. No return call yet, though I have a hunch she's a little busy right now.

So far, not the slightest evidence that any of it is "a lie", or even wrong... except, of course, for a few leftist hysterics and whiners' desperate wish that it could somehow be so.

Better luck next time. :pke:
 
Last edited:
Little-Acorn said:
Sorry to rain on your backslapping parade, but you folks really ought to at least TRY to come up with some evidence that the post is a "lie". Or is it a "lie" in the sense that George Bush's statements about Saddam having WMDs, backed up almost unanimously by reports from every adviser, politcal figures from both sides of the aisle, evidence from intelligence services around the world, etc., was a "lie" since somehow he knew all those people were wrong, too?

Here's a newswire service that published the original article, with the NOW-NY logo and the name of its apparent author, Marcia Pappas.

http://readme.readmedia.com/news/sh...nding-for-Hillary-Clinton-for-President/53725

Marcia Pappas is indeed the head of the NY state chapter of NOW, and is reportedly the one who wrote that statement about Kennedy's "betrayal". A writer for the Politico (Ben Smith) published the statement (as people all over the country are apparently doing), and he says he personally confirmed the story with her.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/NY_NOW_Betrayal.html

Looks so far like the statement is true. I called the numbers listed on the wire service. One is constantly busy, the other gets you to a voicemail service, with a gravelly woman's voice identifying herself as Marcia Pappas. I left an appropriate message. No return call yet, though I have a hunch she's a little busy right now.

So far, not the slightest evidence that any of it is "a lie", or even wrong... except, of course, for a few leftist hysterics and whiners' desperate wish that it could somehow be so.

Better luck next time. :pke:
Click to expand...


The strange thing is that the so-called press release is not on N.O.W.'s website although there is a link to other press releases. Additionally, everyone seems to be linking back to the same source so there hasn't been any confirmation of the original source's accuracy.

I'd also remind you that Ben Smith is the guy that reported that Edwards was dropping out of the race. How'd that work out for him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top