Adele - I won't refute the assertion "that a woman with Obama's level of experience would not be given the time of day in a presidential nomination contest." But is it not also true that a woman with Clinton's level of experience would not be given the time of day in a presidential nomination contest was she not married to a former president. Should she get elected, she won't be breaking the glass ceiling for all women, but rather only for women who have been First Lady. Not very precedent setting.

Considering that Hillary Clinton's "level of experience" is objectively scantier than Barack Obama's -- seven years in elective office versus eleven -- this "would not be given the time of day" spin is a joke.

Does anyone else see these press releases from NOW as a little unhinged? And this group says they speak for American women? Yikes!

"But that doesn't mean that the woman in the race is necessarily going to make this world a better place for my spanking new grandniece, Julianna (born while Kennedy was endorsing Obama), than the guy will. And, by my lights, when I finally make up my mind, it will really be about Julianna."

What if you had a spanking new grandnephew?

"a candidate who looked the other way while her surrogates played the race card. "

You don't believe that shit, do you? Yeeeah, and Bill said we have to slow down the economy.

The women of NOW in NYC have the right to their views - if Ms. Pappas accurately represents them. However, the rest of us, male and female, have the right to find those views unhelpful at best, repugnantly bigoted at worst. As for Taylor Marsh, I suggest you find a commentator with some intellectual integrity. Marsh has been peddling lies and misrepresentation for months now, and a committed feminist should make clear that this is unacceptable in a female commentator, just as it would be in a male.

What feminists should be worried about is character and intensity of hostility to Hillary, who is taken to be an icon of feminism (whether legitimately or not) and what it says about popular reaction against feminism. No matter how Hillary behaves she gets alternatively as as strident, cackling shrew or a frigid, calculating, ruthless self-promoter. The public, and the media, scrutinize her every move, jump on any remark that could be construed as "playing the gender card" and accuse her of representing herself illegitimately as a victim. However centrist her positions have been, conservatives are convinced that she's a dangerous radical, and progressives just don't like her.

Popular sentiment in this regard is a mirror of backlash against feminism. Feminism doesn't mean voting for female candidates, but feminists should take a careful look at what American's response to Hillary, and to Obama, say about their attitudes to feminism--and to women.

There is not much difference between Hillary and Obama on the issues and their bona fides for holding high political office are comparable. The bottom line on the surge for Obama is that Obama is young and good-looking, and has a gorgeous wife, while Hillary is unglamorous.

I'd prefer Edwards, but I'm voting for Hillary.

I have been mulling this over about this press release. I must agree with you, it is so out of control that whatever valid points is has (which it does) is eviscerated by its fulminating anger.

But there are valid points... a lot of it historical. And it does have a bearing on this presidential race and Kennedy's endorsement of Obama.

I am told by those involved in the legislative history of the women's rights legislation which the press release brings up is that indeed Senator Kennedy was always very late in the support of those bills that were about making women more equal participants in society. And so there is a legitimate question to ask if he has ever seen the urgency of making women full participants in society and to breaking the hardest glass ceiling of all. It is a question of his priorities. I guess that before this women's groups have never let his dilatory support for their priorities become known.

Historically there are other parallels. Take the history of the anti slavery movement and the suffrage movement. Women were among the main actors behind the anti slavery movement. The Declaration of Sentiments on women's rights was 1848, the 14th amendment was 1867, defining citizens as male, 1868 the 15th amendment gave only black males the right to vote. And in 1869 Frederick Douglas, the great abolitionist, backed away from his support for the right of women to vote. The 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote ( and no other rights by the way) is not enacted until 1920. Long time since the 14th ....53 years.

The women's movement, which I participated in, was on the left.. very much in response to the way left wing men, white and black , treated women during the "movement". Coffee getting and mimeographing was the predominant activity that left wing men saw for the role of women. It was a great eye opening motivator. And in NY, the epitome of a progressive state, Hillary Clinton is the first, the very first woman elected to statewide office.

And so there is a historical trend that women are slighted, put second after the other more seemingly compelling and discriminated against minority. So the words about progressive men are historically accurate. Also more is expected from those who are progressive...There is a higher standard to be met.

I must add that women are collusive in this too. They often put others before themselves. Indeed one of the conversations in the women's movement in the 70's was why did women keep putting themselves last ....from lives to careers to politics? So we are complicit as well....I mean look at Maureen Dowd....there's not a powerful political woman she wouldn't trash.

I read your post at the Albany Project on women leading at DFA. I think that's wonderful, but it wasn't so long ago that bias was still very clear. I graduated college....went looking for a job at an employment agency. I started to fill out my form, saw there was a list of jobs for men and one for women. The men's jobs were management jobs and the women's clerical. I asked to apply for the men's jobs. I was told ...by the female receptionist...that I wasn't allowed. I walked out.

There is a substantive issue in that awfully written press release. Just imagine a woman being in a position toorun for president who has been a State Senator for only 8 years and a US Senator for only 2 years....Can't imagine it, can you? Hllary Clinton needed those 35 years to get her to a position she is legitimately qualified for....for women it's still true that the road may be longer and harder and as you travel the goal recedes.

So let me quote a portion of Hillel's famous dictum....If I am not for myself who will be, if not now WHEN.

Thank you, *Anonymous*. Excellently put. I appreciate that.

In response to "anonymous" who has commented above me - I've been a feminist for my entire life (60 years) and have been a leader in my own communities of color. My job in the '60's and '70's was not serving coffee or mimeographing - it was organizing in my community which includes men, women and children.

Let's talk about the history the women's suffrage movement - one half of it refused to support the amendment giving the franchise to black men, and started courting Southern, and racist elite white women who would not sit in meetings with black women.

My "she-roe" is Lucy Stone - (not Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B Anthony) who understood that slavery and what had been done to blacks in America was a crime that took precedence over all other causes.

I now teach women's studies - thankfully in an environment where I am accepted as a feminist - and can comfortably explain to my students, some of whom are male and many of whom are women of color that being a feminist does not mean I have to automatically support a woman - just because she is female.

Hillary Clinton has voted for more money to be poured into a war that is killing our nation. The impact on the economy is being felt more harshly in the communities where my folks live - and die.

So I will cast my feminist vote for Obama quite proudly.

To quote Sojourner Truth (who was born into enslavement not far from where I'm typing this, in Ulster County NY), "and Ain't I a woman?"

Being a member of a particular group does not, in and of itself, make the person a constructive advocate for that group.

Extreme examples:

* I'd take Barack Obama over Ann Coulter and feel confident I'd voted for a more feminist candidate.

* I'd vote for Hillary Clinton over Alan Keyes and feel confident I'd voted for a more racial-equality supporting candidate.

Very nice post.. sesli sohbet