Friday, September 12, 2008

In It For The Long Term

What Susie Said.

Real feminists are in it for the long term. The next presidential election will be 92 years from the time when women won the right to vote. Our time for a female president will come and, have I anything to do with it, it will come in 2012. But we're in this for the long term and for more than "just" seeing a woman in the WH. We're in it for reproductive freedom, something McCain/Palin will destroy. We're in it for real sex ed, something McCain/Palin will destroy. We're in it for Mamma Gaia, something McCain/Palin will destroy. We're in it for the memory of our grandmothers and the futures of our daughters, nieces, goddaughters, granddaughters, daughters-in-law, whom McCain/Palin will destroy.

Do I have problems with the Democrats and their approach to/determination to ignore women? You bet your sweet ass, I do. But those problems pale compared to the problems McCain/Palin will create for women.

Do the right thing. Act as if you were -- as you are -- the heiress of a long, continuing, ongoing tradition of feminism. Get out there and vote like you mean it. Vote for Obama/Biden. Real feminists, the kind of feminist that you are, real feminist are in for the long term.


Vicki said...

Great post from Suzie. Thanks for sharing. I was talking to my daughter about this topic last night, and how she must never forget to remember that the rights that we do have, right now, are hard-fought.

Thanks. I'll be sharing this link with her.

Denise said...

fscarYes, we're all doomed of McCain wins.

It's interesting to see so-called feminists stumping for Obama after trashing Hillary.


Anonymous said...

Well Denise, the feminists who supported Obama and trashed Hillary set this whole new situation up.

Women think they have forever and won't just close the deal, throw men out of office and take over the country. We have no excuses now we are OVER 50% of the electorate.

Women fear feminism, and Margaret Thatchers always take advantage of all the hard work of feminism, and it's happening in this election too! No surprise really.

Anonymous said...

It's hard to believe that Obama/Biden care much about women's issues.

Of course, they don't. Roe v. Wade is safe. They just want us to get up in arms and vote for...




nanoboy said...

The major problem is that there is a bit of a lack of Democratic women who are in the pipeline for higher office. I find this problem rather pathetic, given that the Democratic Party is the better party for women.

There was a very, very limited selection of women for Obama to pick as VP, and I think that he didn't want to feel like he had to pick a woman. The decision is too important to base it on what one can find betwixt the candidate's legs. I was pulling for Sebelius, but he didn't go there. I can see major reasons not to pick Hillary, and I think that most of them had to do with Bill. It is a shame that there were so few other female options.

pie said...

Ah, nanoboy proves once again the cluelessness of the dem party and inability to recognize that women are just as good as men when it comes to leadership ability.

pie said...

I should rephrase that.

nanoboy refuses to acknowledge the leadership potential of Hillary Clinton, unlike 18,00,000 other Americans. Instead he pretends that Sebelius, another relative unknown, would have been "acceptable" to him.

CDS is a dread disease, no doubt.

So-called dems like these bore me.

nanoboy said...

Uh... Where was it that I said that Hillary Clinton had no leadership abilities? I've never said that. There were some issues of judgment regarding the employment of some of her advisers, namely Penn. No, I think her biggest problems would have been her husband's business dealings post-presidency and her continued resistance to release all of her records at the Presidential Library.

Honestly, I hope that Clinton does get to play a major role somehow, whether it be a cabinet position, a seat on the Supreme Court, or some important role in the Senate.

As for Sebelius, she is a remarkable person. She may be an unknown, but in that sense, she's really more of one of Kansas' best kept secrets. She has proven leaderships, as well, and a progressive record to boot.

pie said...

She has proven leaderships, as well, and a progressive record to boot.

Her "proven leadership" does not compare to Clinton's experience. It's Kansas, for crying out loud, and where has she been before?

Progressive record? In Kansas?


Let's talk about Obama's progressive recored, shall we?

Fraidy cat?

nanoboy said...

Yes. Kansas. Lots of good folk come from all over. Sebelius has a track record of getting progressive policies passed, even in Kansas. There are lots of records that we can talk about. Clinton voted for the war and the terrible bankruptcy bill. Obama voted for the telecom amnesty. No one is perfect, and requiring perfection will only get you into trouble. Obama picked who he picked, because he thought Biden would be his best choice. There were others that I would have preferred, included Sebelius and Switzer of Montana. Really, I would have preferred Feingold the most, but that's not who he picked. I don't think that Obama picked Biden, because Obama's some sort of sexist, and I don't think that he didn't pick Clinton, Sebelius, or Neapolitano, because he's sexist. He picked who he picked for other reasons.

If you want experience, then, well, Biden certainly outranks Hillary on that front. (Really, Obama and Sebelius have been in elected office for a greater portion of their own lives than Clinton, too, but that's neither here nor there, because First Lady is not an elected position.) Besides, McCain has more experience than any of them, and that doesn't make me want to vote for him at all.