I'm a bit shocked, frankly. No stinkin' way in hell I'm voting for her unless, by some slim chance in hell she wins the primary. She's let me down consistently over the past 5+ years. I have very little faith that, as president, she'd do very much to give women equal footing with national or foreign policy.

Gandy said:

"I am proud, on behalf of over 500,000 contributing members of the National Organization for Women, to announce the NOW PAC's enthusiastic endorsement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president of the United States."

Did she ask those 500,000 members what they thought? I don't think so. Talk about empowering people.

I don't know how I feel about Hilary. I'm pretty surprised at the endorsement, frankly. I don't think she's the best candidate, no, and I think it's too bad. I won't vote for her in the primary just because she's a woman. I just think it says something really sad about our political system that it's taken this long to have a viable female candidate, and that we only have one to choose from (apparently).

Ditto and more.

I might not even vote for her if she wins the nomination! I might to third-party. THAT'S how "system" I think she is. I really think the world wouldn't be much of a different place after 4-8 years of her than it would after 4-8 years of a Republican president.

*sigh*

I really hope she doesn't win the nomination.

Oops. "Ditto and more" is in response to the first commenter, BabyPop.

At this point, I believe any of the candidates we have been presented with can win on the Democratic ticket come 2008, but the question is who could make a difference, and who could make a long-term difference that would result in their re-election. After all, having someone to turn things around is no good if the right finds themselves back in office in 2012.

So, can Hillary Clinton keep two terms and make real difference in the world? No. This was a bad move on the part of NOW. I think they would have been better off endorsing Edwards at this point.

I'm not sure they had much of a choice. She's the first woman to be even a potential Presidential candidate. If they back another (male) candidate, even if he has a better record on women's issues, they'll be called hypocrites for favoring a man over Hillary, and people would say, "Even NOW doesn't really think a woman should be President!" or some such garbage. If they opted not to back ANY candidate, same problem--"Hillary's a woman, but NOW STILL won't back her."

Rock and a hard place, really. At least if Hillary got elected, there'd be a precedent set, and next time the fact that the candidate was a woman wouldn't be such a big deal, and thus we could once more focus on a candidate's qualifications instead of their genitals.

it's great and all, but I'm voting for Barack Obama!!!!

I just think Hillary is too "part of the problem" to be a part of the solution. Sure, we get a milestone, but in exchange we have to give up a lot of Progressive ideas and take a lot of sketchy politics.

I can't see that NOW had any choice. It would have been politically impossible to endorse somebody else or endorse nobody at all. As for the 500,000 members, organizations don't work like that. I'm sure they can vote with their feet and torn-up membership cards.

That said, I have no idea what they mean by leadership on any substantive issue during her Senate tenure. They might have cited an example or a quote from her in the press release if such a thing existed.

My problem with Hillary is that she has kowtowed to the right entirely too much. Oh? Against the Iraq War now? How convenient. It's like she lost so much of spine and spunk I admired in her as soon as she stepped foot into the Senate.

The sad thing is, conservatives always have and always will hate her. And I think centrists and leftists who, years ago, may have supported her, realize what a phony she is.

I posted a link to this article in the comment field under the recent post about southern feminists. I think it definitely applies here. Hillary, if you want to win, stand for something. And don't insult anyone's intelligence (southern, northern, eastern, western, liberal, conservative, or otherwise) with your watered down populism like your husband did.

Finally, don't think I'm Hillary bashing. For so long, I *wanted* her to be successful if/when she ever ran for president. I very rarely discuss politics with my family, but always took up for her when they'd send along their little emails demonizing her. And while I'd still do that, it is very very unlikely that I could, with good conscience, vote for her as president.

Right now, I'm leaning towards Edwards (who I voted for in '04 primaries if I can remember correctly), but crossing my fingers that Gore will give it a try, or, even better, Clark.

Babypop,

I think it should be mentioned that just about everyone voted for the Iraq war based on the fact that most believed the president when he talked about WMD's. Edwards did as well. I personally am sick of hearing people use that as an excuse for Hillary kowtowing to the right, bc its simply untrue.

I think people are also making a mistake saying shes less progressive then obama, bc i would say thats also untrue.

Katie, I know Senator Clinton, and I can tell you the world would be 100% different if she won, and saying it wouldnt be is a little ignorant. I do wish she would stand firm on things, but i believe the reason she cant is because of our two party system. the fact of the matter is, you will NOT win if you are too progressive. it's just not going to happen with the amount of conservatives we have in this country. I am not sure why people here dont realize that. You are very much acting as though we live in this dream world where a democrat can win with ultra progressive views. Sure that would be great, but its not the case. We really need to change the whole system to look like europes, but until then, you have to work with what we have.

Senator Clinton, like a lot of other people in Congress and in the country, was misled about the Iraq War. I am not going to hold this against her, and if she gets the nomination, I am going to support her.

Edwards was the strongest supporter of the Iraq War among the top three contenders.

I have been disappointed with Clinton as a senator, but I'm not sure whether that's because my expectations were so high to begin with, or because I thought she was more progressinve than she really is. I don't think she's a bad choice, and given NOW's broad membership (including come women much less liberal and progressive than many commenters here or any radfem, I think) I don't know that they could have endorsed anyone else.

I'm a member of NOW. I don't know if I'll vote for Hillary, but I think they did the right thing endorsing her.

Honestly, I'm not going to vote for ANYBODY without knowing how they stand on the issues, regardless of gender. If I don't agree, I'll vote for someone else. Which is rather likely, as I'm Green party anyway.

Katie and Mary B -

I am aware of this, and it's understandable that nearly all congresspeople did initially support the war in Iraq. Our nation had very recently been attacked, and tensions from that were (and remain) high. On top of that was the notion of WMDs in Iraq, making the situation even more tense.

However, after nearly 3 years of presence in Iraq and information coming to light that we were taken there under false pretenses, Clinton still supported the decision, much longer after she probably should have, in my opinion.

My criticism of Hillary Clinton's political position runs far and wide - Iraq was just the easiest for me to grab without much though.

I think Hillary Clinton as president looks great on paper. In actuality: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I can't say I'm surprised that NOW endorsed her. She's pretty much their prime demographic. And if she does win then NOW can claim to have had a hand in it.

I might not even vote for her if she wins the nomination! I might to third-party. THAT'S how "system" I think she is. I really think the world wouldn't be much of a different place after 4-8 years of her than it would after 4-8 years of a Republican president.

I really do not understand this perspective. Do you truly believe that if we had had Hillary Clinton in office for the past 6 years instead of Bush, things would be exactly the same as they are now? I haven't looked much into Hillary's politics but I have no doubt that she would be much better than just about any Republican. If a person is willing to align themselves with the Republican party, then they are willing to say that they "officially" stand for things that I do not agree with. And they are going to be influenced in office by their party.

In my opinion, given that we have a two-party system and a third-party candidate is not going to win the presidency, voting third-party is essentially the same as not voting at all. You are letting all the other voters decide for you.

Now I see why there are all the double posts! For everyone who posts after this, if you get an internal server error, apparently your post still goes through.

I'm with Katie. People are far too harsh on Hillary, and I've always suspected that her gender is the primary reason they get away with it. I've seen her speak on several occassions, and I can attest that she is neither phony nor seemingly spineless. To the contrary, my experience is that she is firm, knowledgeable, and passionate...and generally on the right side of the argument. No one, man or woman, becomes as mainstream as she is without having to make a few compromises. (That's called politics.) Certainly, it's not ideal. But there's no reason that she should be held to a higher standard. Give a sister a break. I mean, it's not like NOW endorsed Condi for president.

I went back to her website to see how she officially states her position on women's issues - she doesn't have a statement on reproductive rights. But she did stand firm on the EC issue when it came down to it.

Sorry!

Her stand on Iraq has been appalling but a month or so ago a progressive blog explained why she stand with the President on issues around Iraq. Halfway through the Clinton administration, she stopped calling him "my husband" or "Bill" and started calling him "The President", as in, "You'll have to ask the President yourself." The blog said she lets Bush do what he wants to do because she accords any President the permission to do what he or she thinks is right. This is just me but I think it's a "respect your dad" Midwest mentality. And if she is President she will expect others to respect her enough to let her do what she thinks is right.

Yes, I agree with cowgrrrl. I'm really not sure why all the disappointment and anger about how sleazy most politicians are gets focused on Hillary Clinton so often. I don't see much to indicate that she's any slimier or any less reliable than any other serious politician is. Right, she supported the war, and she did so longer than many other Democrats did, but she's not alone in that. Nor have I ever been quite sure what the adoration of Barack Obama is about--I think the only reason he seems so much less sleazy in comparison is that he hasn't been in national politics long enough.

She seems like a perfectly typical politician to me. I might vote for her in the primary; I might not. I'd definitely vote for her in the election.

I mean, of course she's double-dealing and all that. She's a politican. But she's not indebted to any Christian fundamentalists, which makes her significantly better than the Republican party in my book.

I am not sure that I believe that Hillary Clinton is what is best for women in this country right now. I am not sure I can trust her at this moment in time. I would LOVE to have a female president, but I refuse to vote for someone just because of his or her gender. I'm sticking with Edwards for the time being, but if Hill gets the party nod through the primaries, I'll probably vote for her when it's time for the election. As little faith as I have in her, I have volumes in faith in her compared to what I have in any of the Republican candidates presently in the running.

Al Gore! I'd like to vote for Al Gore.

And when Bill Clinton was President, she accorded him the same respect and let him do what he thought was right. "You'll have to talk to the President."

And all three candidates are crazy about invading Iran. Groan. Which will happen next week according to Air America Radio. The end is nigh folks. Tell the corporate media to talk about it.

I wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman, I just think she will best best for women's issues and everyone else's issues overall.

Cowgrrl - I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I've seen her speak, and I come to a full different conclusion than you do.

I admire Obama's ability to get people excited about change, but that doesn't guarantee my vote any more than Senator Clinton's being a woman gets it.

I understand that compromises must be made in order to get anything accomplished in politics, but when is enough enough?

Faced with the three leading Democratic candidates, I'm not jazzed about any of them. I doubt Clark will run, but he'll get my vote if he does. Same goes for Gore, though he seems to be more likely to run than Clark.

NOW didn't *have to* endorse anyone yet... I'd just like to point that out.

I think NOW needs to work a little harder to find out what its members really want and believe. But come on everyone- Hillary is not that bad. It's not like they're endorsing Gingrich.

The problem with Hillary and women/feminism shoudl not be linked to her personality...and goes beyond her stance on the war. She is becoming increasingly more moderate (even CONSERVATIVE) on abortion...she is NOT an advocate for choice. That's what bothers me about this NOW endorsement.

I have been a member of NOW for many years. They did "poll" the membership. I recommended that NOW not endorse anyone in the primaries but the reality is that the PAC, which is also elected, wanted to make this endorsement regardless of the membership's wishes. It was the photo-op of the campaign.
I will vote for the democrat who wins the primary. My first choice will be who I voted for last time - Mr. Gore.
My brand of feminism doesn't chose candidates or friends based on their biological gender but how they feel about the global advancement of humanity.
It would have been nice if Senator Clinton had been a sponsor YESTERDAY of the ERA, as it was introduced to the 110 Congress. Guess she was busy.

It should be an interesting time in Detroit for the annual conference.

FWIW - I was hoping for all the candidates to show up at the conference so they can sell us on them. I'm ok with NOW endorsing Hillary, but this was a tad early for me.

I agree completely Kristen!

It would have been nice if Senator Clinton had been a sponsor YESTERDAY of the ERA, as it was introduced to the 110 Congress. Guess she was busy.

Only 2 senators and 6 representatives sponsored it. In other words, Edwards and Obama did not sponsor it.

She is the least progressive of the three but as a woman presidential candidate that is unfortunately what she has to be to have a chance.

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-CA)
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

Okay two Democratic senators and four representatives. Clinton, Obama or Edwards were not sponsors.

Whenever you criticize Clinton for something make sure you see if Obama or Edwards are worse or better on the same issue to check your sexism.

Frankly, I think it's a little silly to endorse ANYone this early.

Well then, Cowgrrrl, I guess that if you're 100% correct about what it takes to become "mainstream," I'll never want a "mainstream" president in office.

However, I'm going to keep working to influence the mainstream and make it accepting of a progressive (even if lower-case-katie doesn't think what I'm for could ever happen).

Perhaps Mr. Edwards didn't sponsor the bill because he isn't in Congress? Think, people.

(For an illustration of that mainstream I'm working for--I'm working for a populace that will let Sen. Russ Feingold, just as he is, become mainstream!)

I went back to her website to see how she officially states her position on women's issues - she doesn't have a statement on reproductive rights. But she did stand firm on the EC issue when it came down to it.

Well, per Donna's wise suggestion ("Whenever you criticize Clinton for something make sure you see if Obama or Edwards are worse or better on the same issue"), I looked at Obama's and Edwards' websites. What do you know, neither of them have a statement on reproductive rights either. In fact, Clinton got the closest of the three with her section on Women, which included a statement about reducing the number of unintended pregnancies.

Whenever you criticize Clinton for something make sure you see if Obama or Edwards are worse or better on the same issue to check your sexism.

What is that supposed to mean? That it's sexist to expect a female presidential candidate who has been recently endorsed by a large feminist organization, should sponsor legislation demanding equal rights for women? I don't think that's sexist at all. (I may be reading your comment wrong and apologize in advance if I'm misinterpreting it.) Had NOW endorsed either of the other leading male candidates, I would expect the same.

FWIW, if I'm reading the congressional record correctly, Clinton did cosponser the legislation yesterday.

Hillary isn't perfect but she is definitely better than the evangelical John "god told me to oppose gay marriage" Edwards.

Hillary got a 100% pro-choice score from NARAL (like Edwards). She's repeatedly advocated for universal access to reproductive services. What's the problem with her?

Big K Katie...I support more radical politics (as per my lifestyle and career choices), but I think that ignoring the reality of politics as they exist now is not productive. All my activism on a day to day basis will not change the fact that eventually I will need to choose a mainstream presidential candidate on election day. I'd prefer that that choice include someone like Hillary as opposed to another Bush/Gore vote.