IF YOU ARE NOT FOR THE FIRST VIABLE WOMAN CANDIDATE YOU ARE AGAINST WOMEN?

I just read an angry post allegedly by;{ The New York chapter of NOW just released this press release about Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama:}

To make a long story short. They claim to have both thanked Kennedy for some of his support and had forgiven him for many of his poor moves and compromises. Now he is against women for picking a guy over a woman period, with exclamation points!

There is something terribly wrong with “progressive” politically correct politics, if race or gender is the only criterion for voting for a candidate. We already have people, good people, who vote for their(?) religious candidate, proclaimed by some authority as authentic, just over a claim.

NOWs NY chapter goes on to call Kennedy’s endorsement of a guy, a betrayal. Is it now a betrayal for a Jew to vote for a Christian or the other way around? Perhaps voters over and under 50 should not vote for those on the other side of that fence.

Frankly, I believe Kennedy would endorse Obama over Bill if he was running, that would then be a betrayal of what, your own race?

Now my opinion of the two candidates has its ambiguities; both represent barriers in need of breaking. No offense to Obama, but I am of the mind that we would all be better off if women ran most of the government, overall they prove themselves much more responsible for life than men in general. I have a slight suspicion of Obamas on high speaking tone, oratory hints of Kerry, I wonder who they think they are impressing, or talking down to?

I am even more suspicious of the political style and associations of Clinton. The campaign has made me both more sympathetic to her as an individual, yet more suspicious of her ways of manipulating logical connections in debate (not looking forward to many years of that!) and her glowing promises so representative of Mr. Clinton. Doomed to the same fate?

Now don’t mistake my opinion overall; conservative interest of the world feed of of their turf conflicts. That Republican notion that the terrorist win if you vote Democratic, is actually the opposite of the case. It is the surety of no understanding, thank you very much, between vying conservative dominator ideologies, religious, socio-economic, or political, that generate converts to each sides cause. Keep fear alive! This guarantees perpetual conflict instead of working on the underlying solutions to the conditions that breed the fanatic mindset. How are these groups going to fit in with the corporations, and religious attempts at globalization, guiding the battles over earths resources; human and material?

Even though I believe Obama would break two barriers in the US that would be symbolically helpful in the general war on terror and inspire some who felt permanently left out of the presidency (as would Ms Clinton’s), democracies public remains water-boarded; with elections compromise by hidden techniques and unverifiable recording; control of ideas deemed valid, manipulated by wealth’s access to social functions of society; and money determining candidate access to the public to a great degree. Just three things overthrowing democracy that I hear nothing from the candidates about. Not to mentioned the undermined, compromised, and so, failed fourth estate, which was to be our guarantor of free flowing information and ideas necessary for a free and forthright nation.

But betrayal for valuing your reasons over what one thinks you owe them for their alleged loyalty to you? What has that to do with the truth we are in so desperate need of to live from facts rather than fiction?