Senator Ted Kennedy’s Ultimate Betrayal: Supporting Barack Obama? Really?

by John Hawkins | January 29, 2008 12:45 pm

Uh-oh, the triple fanged, feminist trench harpies from the New York State National Organization for Women[1] are on the warpath against — drumroll please, because you are not going to believe this — Ted *$%%$%$% Kennedy,

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). “They” are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America,, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.

This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability — indeed, our obligation – to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who “know what’s best for us.”

This is just priceless.

Ted Kennedy left a woman to die under a bridge, but his “ultimate betrayal” of women is supporting Obama over Hillary in a primary? By that same logic, isn’t NOW’s support of Hillary Clinton the “ultimate betrayal” of black Americans? Technically, I guess it could be called the “ultimate betrayal” of all men, but it’s not like that’s going to bother the sort of man-haters who belong to an organization like NOW.

PS: Assume that Dick Morris had gotten his way and Condi Rice had been the nominee. You think that the National Organization for Women would be claiming that men had to support her or that it would be an “ultimate betrayal” of women? How much talk do you think we’d hear about women “waiting in the wings” then?

PS #2: Isn’t Hillary Clinton a poor choice for a feminist icon? Since she has gotten married, every single job she has held, including her time in the Senate, was because of her husband, not because she deserved it. Even now, she has him campaigning non-stop for her, is claiming credit for the work he did in the White House, and is essentially promising people a 2 for the price of 1 deal because nobody would be interested in electing Hillary if she weren’t married to Bill. Compared to women like Margaret Thatcher, Condi Rice, and even, dare I say it, Diane Feinstein, who became successful because of their own talent, Hillary Clinton is a pathetic joke.

Moreover, even if Hillary were to be President, it wouldn’t be any great victory for women. When history looked back at her, there would be a figurative asterisk stuck beside of her name, “Hillary Clinton was elected President in 2008, but she was only elected because she was married to Bill Clinton. The first woman President who made it to the White House on her own merits was…”

  1. New York State National Organization for Women:

Source URL: