WOW. LA’s NOW President Endorses Palin
[Guest post by DRJ]
From Kim Priestap at Wizbang:
“America, this is what a feminist looks like”
Who said that about Sarah Palin? Would you believe the president of LA’s National Organization for Women, Shelly Mandel? Amazing! This is quite a moment for her to push back against the pressure from the feminist groups who see Sarah Palin as a traitor because she’s a Republican and pro-life who actually lived her principles. Let’s hope more mainstream, liberal feminists come out of their closets and support Sarah because, as Shelly said, Sarah supports women’s rights, equal pay, Title 9, and the middle class. She has integrity and demands it from others.
Video at the link.
Priestap speculates this endorsement may be why Palin made an unscheduled visit to California.
EDIT: Allahpundit at Hot Air describes Mandel’s comments as an introduction but doesn’t mention an endorsement. Ace is there and describes it as an introduction, too, but also notes the “this is what a feminist looks like — Sarah Palin.” I can’t see the video now so you watch and be the judge. [Dana says Mandel “supports and endorses Palin although she does not agree with her on every issue.” Thanks, Dana.]
FWIW, I think I’m arguing with myself. Why would the NOW President do this if it wasn’t an endorsement?
This was not unscheduled. She had a fundraiser in Orange County also. Take note that the LA Times article about this event mentions nothing about this endorsement.Mark1971 (888585) — 10/5/2008 @ 1:43 pm
DRJ, on the video, Shelly Mandel while stating she is there as an individual voter, she clearly states that she supports and endorses Palin although she does not agree with her on every issue (she will work on persuading Palin to her side, just as Palin will work on persuading McCain to her view of Answr). She also ends her endorsement and introduction by saying its an honor to call her sister.
Shelly Mandel has some serious backbone. She is a feminist that I can wholeheartedly respect.Dana (973491) — 10/5/2008 @ 2:18 pm
Thanks, Dana. I’ll update the post.DRJ (c953ab) — 10/5/2008 @ 2:21 pm
DRJ – Palin apparently also said during her remarks that “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support women.” I haven’t seen a clip of that part to verify it. The left is hacking her apart for mangling it as a quote from Madeleine Albright. Not having seen it, I don’t know whether she attributed it and mangled it or what. Whatever, it’s a good line and should make some more heads explode.daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/5/2008 @ 2:26 pm
Shelly will now feel the ire, and backlash, from her sisters at the national NOW leadership.AOracle (e6d3fc) — 10/5/2008 @ 2:29 pm
They do not tolerate those regional leaders that dare to stray from the Liberal reservation.
Greta Van Susteren has been blogging about this. She says she knows this woman and is going to contact her.
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/10/05/this-is-interesting-more-women/Mark1971 (888585) — 10/5/2008 @ 2:35 pm
Comment by daleyrocks — 10/5/2008 @ 2:26 pm
daley…AOracle (e6d3fc) — 10/5/2008 @ 2:38 pm
Here’s a link to the story, and quotes, in the OCRegister…
What exactly constitutes “feminism?” Equal rights and opportunities for women? If that’s what feminism is, you have to admit that Mrs. Palin is a feminist. If you believe in empowering women, you can’t destroy a woman just because she doesn’t share your opinions about abortion.Steve Poling (8b0aa0) — 10/5/2008 @ 2:56 pm
I would like to know when Mandell agreed to introduce Palin and give such rousing support because it would seem that the McCain camp may have lost a ripe moment in the campaign – and in the historical sense – to not highlight her appearance. Even though LA is the hotbed of leftism and solidly behind Obama, one can reasonably guess that if the president of the chapter of NOW is pro-Palin, then there are perhaps thousands like her who are hesitant to voice their support. Had they (and we) known this, many more of us might have been inclined to show support for such a ballsy move.
I was at Greta’s site 15 minutes ago and just checked back. Comments supporting Mandell’s move were at 550ish and now top 1,645. Tell me that this was not an historic event that resonates with thousands of women who are feminists and yet do not toe the company line.
This possible short-sightedness of the McCain camp makes me nuts.Dana (973491) — 10/5/2008 @ 2:59 pm
I was there at the rally and let me say the audience was a bit stunned to see Mandell step up to the podium to introduce Sarah.
her line “THIS is what feminism looks like” referring to Sarah got a huge, positive reaction.Darleen (187edc) — 10/5/2008 @ 3:07 pm
Palin did slightly misquote Albright but hardly a significant error given that the word she used is a synonym.SPQR (26be8b) — 10/5/2008 @ 3:11 pm
National Organization for Wacists!Jim Treacher (671d28) — 10/5/2008 @ 3:14 pm
Palin said she read it off her Starbucks Cup, so it might be that they got it wrong…
I’m looking but cannot find anything yet to confirm or deny the misquote was from Palin.Darleen (187edc) — 10/5/2008 @ 3:28 pm
You have no idea what CA Leftists would have brought to bear on Mandell if her appearance was advertised before hand.
I cannot put a McCain/Palin sign in my yard or bumpersticker on my car least I ask for some vandalizing.
Leftist ideology is a cult and Obama is their Prophet. Apostates and unbelievers are not worthy of politie disagreement.Darleen (187edc) — 10/5/2008 @ 3:34 pm
Darleen, I know precisely what CA leftists are like. I live here and work in a So. Cal. public school and believe me, it doesn’t get any more left than there but my point is this, yes, they would have brought signs and made noise and tried to shout her down, but why are we so afraid? Why do we allow them to continually be in the place of power – whether in our communities, at our work sites, and even at Republican rallies?
This is a microcosm of the the entire election campaign – the right rolls over because they fear the left and by rolling over yet again, we give another inch. And on it goes until eventually there won’t ben any more inches left to give.
The right has a serious issue with being able and willing to fight back hard and heavy. And this most certainly can be done while maintaining integrity and dignity.Dana (973491) — 10/5/2008 @ 3:44 pm
Feminism isn’t simply dead, it’s decomposed.David Ehrenstein (06e7fb) — 10/5/2008 @ 3:57 pm
yes, they would have brought signs and made noise and tried to shout her down
I disagree, Dana. They would have pressured her, her employer, made veiled threats against her and her family and even vandalized her home.
If it was limited to mere poster carrying loons, that is easily ignored. Thugs … not so much.Darleen (187edc) — 10/5/2008 @ 4:15 pm
We shall have to disagree, Darleen. I know that I and many others are simply very tired of seeing these sorts of fears controlling our side. Ms. Mandell has made a courageous stand and I believe she could have been more fully supported by other like-minded women had we known. Also, why is it continually assumed that thugs will win the day? I’m sorry but I am loathe to see the will to fight for the freedom of speech in Southern California be forfeited on any level.
FWIW, that line of reasoning somewhat reminds me of Europe’s surrender to Islam because of possible retaliation for speaking out and against. Fear drives the bus, not the hunger for freedom.Dana (973491) — 10/5/2008 @ 4:37 pm
Please understand, I’m not saying fear of being attacked SHOULD inhibit conservatives. We DO need to fight back. But just like I don’t leave my keys in the car’s ignition and lock my door at night, I have to be aware that the Left doesn’t respect the rules of civil discourse and plan accordingly.
My McCain/Palin bumpersticker is magnitized so it is not on when the car is parked in any public place.
That’s just what I have to do. Not fear, just reality.Darleen (187edc) — 10/5/2008 @ 5:09 pm
Pretty funny to me that the wingnuts are so utterly desperate that they are gleeful over an alleged NOW endorsement.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the wingnuts thought of NOW as having no credibility.
And thanks in advance for anyone who’d be kind enough to point out the actual endorsement. I still have yet to find it.jharp (2282bb) — 10/5/2008 @ 5:13 pm
As far left as Chicago has become over the years, it’s startling to see a number of McCain/Palin signs in my ‘hood these days. I have NEVER seen a sign for any GOP candidate in over 25 years of living here on the North Side, and that includes the Reagan years. Contrast that with many homes not taking their Kerry/Edwards signs down, even a year after that election.Dmac (cc81d9) — 10/5/2008 @ 5:25 pm
Dmac,Chris (cefe13) — 10/5/2008 @ 6:02 pm
NorCal is still dotted w/Keryy-Edwards signs and bumperstickers. 4 freakin’ years after the fact. Bitter clingers, they are.
Obama supporter stomps vet.
There will be no dissent from The One.Darleen (187edc) — 10/5/2008 @ 6:16 pm
Darleen, no fanatic like a religious fanatic.SPQR (26be8b) — 10/5/2008 @ 6:22 pm
“Bitter clingers, they are.”
Bitter? More like flat – out insane.Dmac (cc81d9) — 10/5/2008 @ 7:18 pm
I watched the Youtube excerpt, and it was indeed a complete endorsement.
This is the horror of one-issue operatives. This is someone who doesn’t care if the economy is in tatters of the world hates us. She just cares to have a woman as VP, whether she is qualified or not. She was doubtless a Hillary supporter for the same reason.
She says she was a lifelong Democrat. If so, she was a mindless lifelong Democrat — as a lifelong Democrat myself, I encounter the mindless kind in both parties quite often.Gene Venable (86f20c) — 10/5/2008 @ 7:25 pm
Prior to her introduction of Palin, I innocently chatted with Ms. Mandel, not knowing her intended role. There was a group meeting downstairs for mingling – lots of Republican congressmen, state senators, campaign leaders and staff, supporters, etc. Palin gave us a little rah-rah right before going on-stage upstairs.
She introduced herself as a Hillary supporter and was very vocal about Clinton’s ill-treatment. I, of course, agreed and added that Clinton was by far the more serious Democratic candidate.
She definitely looked, acted, and talked like a stereotypical NOW local chair. One very intense lady.whitehall (7fd130) — 10/5/2008 @ 8:08 pm
Heh – well, to paraphrase Michelle Obama – for the first time, I am proud of my feminists.Rose (4de666) — 10/6/2008 @ 12:22 pm
As a Feminist with Historic activity in the Women’s Movement from 1969 onward, I support Palin and The President of NOW LA decision to endorse her. Palin is a feminist.. I don’t support all her issues ,but she is exactly what the women’s movement needs. I am Proud of my feminists.. Proud of being a feminist.. My husband and daughter (who is an economist) is a feminist and we support Palin.YvonneEloise (6afa35) — 10/7/2008 @ 6:57 am
jharpy is quite adept at ignoring the reality right in front of his face.JD (f7900a) — 10/7/2008 @ 7:01 am
I’m pretty disturbed by Mandel’s endorsement of Palin. Palin is an embarrassment for the women’s rights movement. She is anti-choice and she is about as far right-winged as you can get. Sarah Palin is very full of herself and she is not qualified to be VP. McCain is a rich guy along with a rich wife who have no clue how the rest of us live. I’m disgusted with the way the media has portrayed Palin as a side show diversion. McCain seems to be riding on the coat tails of the Palin media frenzy. It further disturbs me when someone from a pro-choice organization would endorse such a person. For Palin to allow herself to get pregnant at 44 makes me question her decision-making abilities. Forget talking about ending a pregnancy of another handicapped child. She doesn’t get any awards from me for those decisions. I’d be kind of embarrassed for the NOW organization with Mandel’s endorsement. She certainly doesn’t speak for the majority of women voters out there.Mitsy (e92c71) — 10/7/2008 @ 1:08 pm
Comment by Mitsy — 10/7/2008 @ 1:08 pm
Yes, I’m quite sure that Ms. Mandel has forfeited any chance of being invited to tea on the Upper East Side of NY, or in the tonier climes of LA/SF.AOracle (d30543) — 10/7/2008 @ 1:38 pm
Everywhere else, I’m sure she would be welcomed as someone who is unafraid to speak her mind.
Why?JD (f7900a) — 10/7/2008 @ 1:43 pm
Oh yeah, we really need more mentally handicapped kids in our overcrowded special ed programs, now don’t we? When you have FOUR kids already and you are over 40, it’s time to hang up the uterus. Palin will be a grandmother soon. Another perk for the governor who spouts out an abstinence only policy. Need more reasons why it’s ludicrous to endorse this woman?Mitsy (e92c71) — 10/7/2008 @ 2:18 pm
So, Mitsy, who is pro-choice, is not actually pro-choice. Unless the Chinese model of pro-choice is the operative definition. Mitsy will be making all of the reproductive choices for all women. Fascist.JD (f7900a) — 10/7/2008 @ 2:29 pm
I’m pretty disturbed by Mandel’s endorsement of Palin. Palin is an embarrassment for the women’s rights movement.
— Yeah. A woman who marries the man she loves, raises a family, gets an education, AND rises to become the Governor of one of our 50 states? How embarrassing.
She is anti-choice and she is about as far right-winged as you can get. Sarah Palin is very full of herself and she is not qualified to be VP.
— Is that your professional medical opinion, Doctor? that she is “full of herself”? In my opinion, you are suffering from non sequiteritis.
McCain is a rich guy along with a rich wife who have no clue how the rest of us live.
— So, since you obviously DID NOT vote for John Kerry, who did you vote for in 2004?
I’m disgusted with the way the media has portrayed Palin as a side show diversion.
— The same media that is in the tank for Obama. Oh, irony.
McCain seems to be riding on the coat tails of the Palin media frenzy. It further disturbs me when someone from a pro-choice organization would endorse such a person.
— If your standard is that you will only endorse someone who believes in all of the things you believe in, you will likely end up with no one to endorse but yourself. It further disturbs me when you leftards simply cannot handle compound words; “coattails” for instance.
For Palin to allow herself to get pregnant at 44 makes me question her decision-making abilities.
— I must have missed that part of NOW’s platform. Is that included in the Obama “don’t want them to be punished with a baby” addendum?
Forget talking about ending a pregnancy of another handicapped child.
— Just a second, now. If a handicapped child becomes pregnant there might be something to talk about.
She doesn’t get any awards from me for those decisions.
— She’ll be crushed.
I’d be kind of embarrassed for the NOW organization with Mandel’s endorsement.
— I thought that NOW supports a woman’s right to choose. Does that right not extend into the voting booth?
She certainly doesn’t speak for the majority of women voters out there.
— The exit polls will give an indication as to whether or not you are correct.
Oh yeah, we really need more mentally handicapped kids in our overcrowded special ed programs, now don’t we?
— Careful! Your humanity is oozing from every pore.
When you have FOUR kids already and you are over 40, it’s time to hang up the uterus.
— Curious. Isn’t “keep your hands off my uterus” part of the feminist mantra? Who the hell are YOU to tell Sarah Palin what to do with hers?
Palin will be a grandmother soon. Another perk for the governor who spouts out an abstinence only policy.
— As you yourself have noted, Palin is not against women having children; neither is she in favor of crucifying someone who makes a mistake.
Need more reasons why it’s ludicrous to endorse this woman?Icy Truth (1468e4) — 10/7/2008 @ 3:16 pm
— Well, since you have yet to provide even one . . .
That does seem to be an oddity.
How many Bush/Cheney signs were there in 2004?Michael Ejercito (a757fd) — 10/7/2008 @ 3:19 pm
Feminism isn’t simply dead, it’s decomposed.
— If by that you mean the quest for equal treatment as opposed to equal rights, you are correct. Why any woman ever thought that being treated the same as a man would be the height of womanhood . . . why the thought of being treated with fairness and respect AS a woman somehow cannot be the ideal . . .Icy Truth (1468e4) — 10/7/2008 @ 3:31 pm
I didn’t read all the posts; possibly, someone else has made this point: anyone who votes for Sarah Palin because she is a woman is just as much a sexist as someone who won’t vote for her for the same reason. I find the reasoning offensive both ways. Those of you who don’t reach this conclusion truly worry me, because the central concern here is much bigger than “the first woman VP.” For this job it should be qualifications , qualifications, qualifications. You want to compare her to Hillary Clinton? She pales by comparison. Furthermore I think it’s fair to say there wasn’t a single serious candidate in the presidential primaries who isn’t more qualified than she by any objective standard.kooch (743e4d) — 10/10/2008 @ 9:26 pm
She babbles. Do you understand what that means? Incoherently babbles. Comically so. Can you seriously overlook that? She is out of her league.
kooch, Palin does not “pale” by comparison to Hillary Clinton. Unlike Hillary, Sarah Palin did not ride someone else’s coattails to power.SPQR (26be8b) — 10/10/2008 @ 9:27 pm
For someone who supposedly ‘babbles’, kooch, her enemies in Alaska have spent an incredible amount of energy and time attempting to smear her with a bogus ethics charge.
Why so much effort for someone ‘incoherent’?
They doth protest too much.Apogee (366e8b) — 10/10/2008 @ 9:35 pm
Comment by kooch — 10/10/2008 @ 9:26 pm
Of course, your comment applies to BHO equally as well.Another Drew (e6d3fc) — 10/10/2008 @ 9:59 pm
Anyone who votes for, or against, BHO because of race, is a priori, a Racist!
Kooch – Would you vote for Palin if she was pro- choice?daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/10/2008 @ 10:19 pm