What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews, By Kate Michelman

[jefferson_dem]

What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews
The "Hardball" host wanted to know how a feminist like me could support someone other than Hillary Clinton. Well, here's how.

By Kate Michelman



Feb. 8, 2008 | As the red light atop the camera went dark on Monday night, there was still much more I wanted to say to Chris Matthews, much more that I needed to say.

So for the moment, my time on "Hardball" continues here.

Knowing that I had just announced my support for Barack Obama for president after having earlier supported my old friend John Edwards, Matthews had me on his show Monday. His first Hardball to me was one of his typical zingers: "Kate Michelman, how does it feel to have abandoned the cause of your life?"

The simple answer, Chris, is that I haven't -- in fact, my endorsement of Barack, just like my earlier embrace of John Edwards, is all about exalting the causes of my life. Not about repudiating them.

I haven't abandoned my commitment to the women's movement -- and anyone who knows me understands I never will. My endorsement of Barack Obama is actually a celebration of that commitment, and an honest reflection of what I have been fighting for for over 40 years.

The women's movement is about free choice, self-determination and challenging a status quo that fails a lot of Americans, not just women. And it is not about going along. It's about transcending, about having the freedom to follow one's heart, about creating and pursuing new opportunities, and about the American dream being for all Americans.

Chris' gotcha-type question to me and the semi-criticism implicit in it -- that as a woman I have some biological obligation to unreservedly support whatever woman is running -- are exactly the sentiments I faced when I first started working for a woman's right to choose. If women who vote for men are traitors, then are men who vote for women also traitors? What about African-Americans who vote for whites? Or whites who vote for African-Americans?

Laying this guilt trip, this hypocrisy, on women -- saying that those women who don't vote for other women are turncoats -- is tantamount to saying that women who exercise independent thought haven't the right to do that either. Could there be a more anti-feminist contention?

<SNIP>

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/02/08/chris_matthews/?source=whitelist

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jefferson_dem]

2. you're more of one.

dumber response.

[iamjoy]

3. Good For Her!

Matthews is such a twerp! Sadly, I think a lot of people have that feeling though, that African Americans MUST vote for the black candidate, Hispanics for the brown and women for the one with the two X chromosomes. Remember all the fuss about what are black women to do - having to choose between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Sure there are a lot of people who are excited about a strong candidate who is female and a strong candidate who is African American. And some of these people may not be paying as much attention to
the issues and cast their vote on biological features alone. But to suggest that they have an oblication to do so, or that an intelligent person who pays attention to the issues is some how a traitor to "their own" for deciding to support some one else...

Hey, did anyone blast the African American leaders who endorsed Clinton over Obama?

[Nite Owl]

4. That was very

nicely expressed.

[HeraldSquare212]

5. The women's movement is also about not killing and maiming women and children. nt

[sfam]

6. This again begs the question: Why is Tweety still an MSNBC Headliner?

What a horrid question! Why is he still there?

Great response though.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. MSNBC, here's a clue for you: Misogyny Should Not Be Condoned

Here's a rogues gallery of the worst on that network:







And the asshat with the power to end this crap, but who chooses not to:

[badgerpup]

8. Voting for someone merely BECAUSE they're _______ (fill in blank)

...is simply the other side of the coin of voting against them because they are ________ (fill in the blank).

Putting Hillary on a pedestal because of her gender, or Obama on a pedestal because of his race, is just plain stupid. That's the 'reasoning' (read: specious bullshittery excuse) that put Gonzo in the Attorney General's seat.
Man was NOT qualified on so many levels but he was Hispanic. Going against his appointment meant that the pubbies could say NI! RACIST! to any dissenters.
Let's not do that again, shall we?

The question is, and should remain
WHICH OF THESE TWO PEOPLE WILL DO THE BEST JOB AS PRESIDENT?

That's where it gets sticky, because there is a whole damn laundry list of things we want from our President...and not everyone agrees on them; or if they do, which should take priority over what.
The current occupant of the White House and this administration are going to leave one unholy mess...and don't even TALK to me about 'healing'.
I want to see JUSTICE. :grr:
That's on the laundry list...but there's things that need addressed first.

Which of these people is going to take into account this list, and be ready, willing, and able to come across with the most important items on it?
That's what we should be focusing on...

:rant:

I'm still here, in case anyone gives a flying BFD.:hi:
Just this party's gotten awful rough anymore... :yoiks:

[Iceburg]

9. Good post. That's why Clinton gets the nod from me./nt