By Selwyn Duke

It’s a beautiful thing when leftists start to eat their own.  The New York chapter of the National Organization for Women has harshly condemned Ted Kennedy for his endorsement of Barack Hussein Obama. 

Reporter Kumi Tucker writes about the story and tells us:

"This is a blow to Sen. Hillary Clinton. NOW NY calls it the greatest betrayal, saying in a statement, ‘We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton.’"

Now, now, NOW.  You’re getting hysterical (note their exclamation point).

This is a quintessentially emotional reaction, totally bereft of logic.  This is, no doubt, why NOW issued a national statement wherein they praise Kennedy and speak of the respect and admiration they have for him.  They obviously felt it was necessary to negate the effects of their NY sisters’ estrogen rush. 

But let’s analyze the feminists’ reaction.  Their stance much reminds me of a wife who has always stood by her cad of a husband and then gets upset when he won’t rubber stamp some untoward desire or position of hers.  And many of you know what I’m talking about.  In general, women exhibit extreme family patriotism (this is why a mother will be even more likely than a father to defend her children when they are wrong).  Consequently, many women will expect their husbands to follow suit, to defend them simply because they’re part of the family, regardless of the validity of their position.  Instead of understanding that the man truly may not believe she is espousing Truth in the given instance (and Truth always comes first), her thinking often is, "He’s not agreeing with me; he must not love me!"

The same phenomenon is evident here.  "Ted, you pig!  We stood by you when you mistreated women, even when your actions led to the death of Mary Jo Kopechne!  We gave of ourselves for you!  We’re family!  And now you’re not there for us!!" is what I see when I read between NOW’s lines.

This is why the NOW leadership is both stupid and contemptible.  They stood by a philandering Ted Kennedy just as they did an adulterous Bill Clinton, seemingly numb to the fact that these men treated the women in their lives like doormats.  And why?  Because, you might say, these political lovers were good "providers"; they did the feminists’ bidding in the halls of government.  But that is simply what rakish men do: They assuage the guilt they may feel for their mistreatment of women in private by throwing them a bone in public.  Their thinking is that they are simply treating women as the "liberated" creatures they are in both aspects of their lives.  I knew a fellow like this, by the way.

Although I have no use for either Hillary Clinton or Obama — it’s six of one, a half-dozen of the other — is there anything more ridiculous than implying that someone should vote for a politician simply because the latter belongs to a certain group?  Did it ever occur to NOW that maybe, just perhaps, Kennedy believes Obama is a better candidate?  Also, who’s kidding who?  Does anyone think NOW would be supporting the "woman" if she were Phyllis Schlafly?

Anyway, we must be living in the end times if NOW is spewing venom on ol’ Kennedy.  I mean, what a tongue lashing.

It’s enough to drive a man to drink.

                                                                       Protected by Copyright