National Organization For Women endorses Obama/Biden

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Sep 16, 2008.

  1. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    Heard this this morning on NPR.

    Not to sound sexist (because I am not), but I am happy to see/hear this happening, as I was getting more disgusted than I already was with people starting to support Palin just on the mere fact that she is a woman. NOW puts it really into perspective, and I'm glad to see that (some) women are looking more into the issues at hand rather than the gender/image being shown.

    Enjoy and discuss.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94658965

    BL.
     
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #2
    Guess it says something that they believe that the ticket with two men on it is more woman-friendly than the one with a man and a woman. :)
     
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    I smell the influence of a certain New York senator :)
     
  4. Ntombi macrumors 68030

    Ntombi

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    Bostonian exiled in SoCal
    #4
    As a long-time member of NOW, there was no question that this was happening. This election is too important and the differences between the two main tickets too stark to do anything else.

    I'm glad it's getting press, though.
     
  5. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #5
    This is good to know. I have a (stubborn?) friend who is voting Red because she's always voted that way, and because a woman (Palin) is there, and doesn't realize that Palin doesn't care about instances of rape/incest. It's erupted into many an argument with her family, and it just astounds me that some women were thinking that because Palin is there, that she'll stand up for women, even if their views don't equal Palin's.

    I am all for women's rights and equality, but I'm just glad that women are looking into the issues at hand, than just voting because a woman is there.

    I should ask that friend how she would have voted in 1984...

    BL.
     
  6. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #6
    it would have been astounding if NOW had endorsed McPain.
     
  7. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #7
    The NOW endorsement happened for one reason...

    John Paul Stevens, age 88
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 75
     
  8. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #8
  9. shu82 macrumors 6502a

    shu82

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Rocket City, AL
    #9
    What next, AARP, or the UAW? Move along people, nothing new.
     
  10. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #10
    for some reason im guessing that doesnt take into account what the persons actual job is. Of course some people in his campaign are higher up than others hence higher wages. But this mentions non of that does it?
     
  11. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #11
    Much like the same "wage gap" myth that's trotted out takes the average of all male salaries versus the average of all female salaries and comes out with some imaginary discrepancy. Guess who is trying to get mileage out of this?

    If this is the standard to which he is adhering, he's not doing overmuch to remedy it in his own house.
     
  12. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #12
    Don't forget Souter, who is tired of being on the Court.

    But all around this will help to mellow diehard Clinton supporters that might not have voted for Obama (I hope anyways).
     
  13. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #13
    I agree with you that the "wage gap" is normally discussed without consideration of the type of job -- if you assume that women, without barriers, are as capable as men, you should be able to compare dollar for dollar.

    BUT you need to look at the information posted -- if I read a progressive or liberal site, I look at their links and don't just assume their analysis to be correct.

    1. Legistorm, where these conservative blogs got their data, and who the blogs are crediting with the analysis, say that it is NOT their analysis.

    2. These blogs had financial data from Legistorm for several fiscal years, and took the data for TWO MONTHS in 2008, extrapolated to six months, then doubled to get a year's salary. What kind of playing with numbers is that, especially considering the fact that Legistorm, where they got the info., specifically says "Congressional staff salaries shown are the amount paid in the period shown. They are not annual salaries. Because bonuses may be included here and other payments may not be (most notably with aides working for multiple offices or for a political campaign committee), please use caution in extrapolating annual salaries from the figures shown here. "

    (go to http://www.legistorm.com/member/76/Sen_Barack_Obama.html and then click on one of the staffers.)

    I have no idea if the overall allegation is correct, but the figures they used and the analysis of the figures are obviously faulty.
     
  14. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #14
    OK apparently you're missing my point. Radical groups like NOW like to trot out the "woman are only paid 77¢ for every dollar a man makes" (or however much it is this week) as part of furthering their agenda. The way that they arrive at this figure is pure bunk. Using the same bunk methodology, it can be "shown" that Obama only pays his female staffers 83¢ for every dollar he pays his male staffers, and ironically, they're endorsing him. That's what I find utterly hilarious.

    I'm still trying to figure out why any of this is newsworthy - with that sellout Biden on the ticket, who else were they going to endorse? It's like the KKK making an announcement that they were endorsing David Duke.
     
  15. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #15
    The radical feminists are going to have to get up earlier if they think they can pull their agenda wool over our white middle class male eyes :mad:!
     
  16. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #16
    Anybody who thinks NOW is a radical group is going to have a very big surprise when they come across a real group of radicals.
     
  17. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
  18. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #18
    Thank you.
     
  19. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #19
    Next up in the news: liberal organization endorses Democratic party!

    Now back to you, John.
     
  20. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #20
    This reminds me of the time my grandfather started taking antioxidants, then stopped a week later when he found out that Patty Hearst wasn't one of the free radicals they protected against.
     
  21. g4cubed macrumors 6502a

    g4cubed

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    #21
    Isn't that two. :rolleyes: ;)
     

Share This Page