The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

Wow, NOW

"Whoa," says Ben Smith of Politico about the New York chapter of NOW's blast against Ted Kennedy for endorsing Barack Obama. Whoa is right. Also woe. Also wow. NOW NY calls the endorsement "the ultimate betrayal," lays into Kennedy for his apparent past legislative sins, which the group previously "hushed," and writes, “And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us."  Lots more fury follows—enough to prompt John Dickerson to wonder if the name Mary Jo Kopechne was in the original draft of NOW's press release.

So, that's it—an endorsement of any candidate but Hillary is a betrayal of the feminist cause? I suppose the more sophisticated version is that interest groups expect the politicians they support to support them blindly in their time of need. This is their time of need, the NY NOW chapter argues, ergo, Kennedy should be with them. But that assumes that the feminist time of need equates with electing Hillary. Would most women, or even most feminists, agree with that? I just can't. And what does this narrow-cast way of evaluating a candidate really have to recommend it?  I can't think of anything on that score, either. Can some other women's group please speak up to say that if Kennedy has good reason to think that Obama would be the best president for the country, and a damn fine president for women, then supporting him is A-OK with them?