RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Believing Again

Kate Michelman on February 4, 2008 - 2:36pm
Published under: | | | | | |
Kate Michelman's blog | Print this |
Kate Michelman's picture

The question I have been asking myself and others during my entire life in public policy and throughout this 2008 presidential Campaign -- the question which tens of millions of women and men have also been asking -- is how do we best bring America together in shared purpose, prosperity and, especially, equality.

Those of us who until last week worked for Senator John Edwards to become president were always fighting for something bigger than any of us and bigger than all of us. We were also part of a movement with the objective, John's objective, of lifting up all Americans.

John Edwards is not going to be president, and so what we who were helping him must do is now elect the individual who has deep in his core John's principles and vision for this country. And so today, with every ounce of passion and enthusiasm I have, I am endorsing Senator Barack Obama to be president of the United States

Barack Obama is also calling our nation to the greatness that we all want but that we're uncertain we can still achieve. Others talk about greatness and they even say all the right words, but they do not bring those words to life. Their words do not grab us by the arms and pull us along together.

Barack Obama, like John Edwards, is redefining what is possible and in so doing he's changing us, each one of us.

Many who had given up on politics are re-engaging. Many who had grown tolerant of the intolerable are now ready to demand more ­ and not just from themselves but others. And many who had given up believing that the ideals of equality, dignity and justice would ever again be as politically important as money and power, now believe again.

And this too is why I'm endorsing Senator Barack Obama.

Barack and John Edwards were different candidates, with different backgrounds and life experiences, but all these many months and really throughout their lives, they have been on a common path.

Both are focused on changing our politics, both are committed to shaking the foundation of the Washington establishment, and both are profound voices for what our country should and can be.

When I endorsed John Edwards for president, I did so because I was confident he would help lift women out of poverty and protect a woman's right to make her own decisions about if or when to have a family. I was confident that if John were in the White House, the single mother, who was working two jobs, living paycheck to paycheck, and worried about health care and child care, would have more influence than the well-healed corporate CEO armed with a team of lobbyists.

And when I endorsed John Edwards I also knew that Barack Obama shared every one of these concerns, and over the course of Barack's own campaign, the nation has come to believe in him just like I always have as well.

Senator Obama is not just prepared to lead ­ as our beloved Teddy and Caroline Kennedy have said, he is prepared to lead in a way different than we have seen for decades. Not out in front with us behind him, but rather with us beside him.

And that difference is all the difference. That difference separates just any president from a great president; and right now, we need a great president.

Barack Obama will be that great president. He will bring us all together. And together, we will change our country.

During these past many years, we have lost the sense of what we could do together, who we could be, what was possible.

That's changing.

And Barack Obama is the one changing that.

With him, greatness is again within reach.

This article was originally published on The Huffington Post.


Kate Michelman's blog | Print this |
. . . . .
10 comments
Brava! Brava! Brava!

Thank you Kate! As a visionary leader of the pro-choice movement, powerful voice for women and thoughtful progressive, your endorsement of Obama following your heroic efforts for Edwards is wonderful. Edwards is an amazing candidate and said it best when he said it was time to step aside and let history take its course. We cannot afford, as Democrats, as Americans, to look backwards or risk that another progressive agenda gets sidetracked by the Clinton machine.

Submitted by No More Bill on February 4, 2008 - 3:03pm.
Wow, you really don't want

Wow, you really don't want a pro-choice woman to be president. I hope you read Susan Wood's piece here.

"This story of emergency contraception at the FDA is just one story of many. Senator Clinton saw a problem that affected people's lives. She then stood up to the challenge, never wavered and worked to solve it. "

Submitted by Anonymous on February 4, 2008 - 7:09pm.
I would LOVE to see a

Hillary Clinton presidency. Unfortunately, Hillary winning the nomination will be a gift to the GOP, complete with a big red bow to provoke the social conservative bulls. The GOP smear machine is lubed and loaded with attack ads and ready to pander to sexists, traditionalists, and H.O.B. (Haters of Bill). She has just too much political baggage to beat McCain, who will pretend to be a calm moderate while he happily paints her as a wild-eyed feminist. Only if the GOP went too far and came off as spiteful jerks would their attacks on her backfire.
So, I must admit to favoring Obama who will be harder for the GOP to smear. They will find pandering to racism and "Islamo-phobia" a much harder sell, and will be more likely to electrocute themselves on the twin third rails of race and religion.

Submitted by ruthless on February 5, 2008 - 8:52pm.
Pro-Choice President

I want a pro-choice president, male or female, because I want the next several justices to understand the concept of privacy. The best way to ensure that is to pick a winner, and the best candidate to beat McCain is Obama. My decision is based on who can win, and who will not see their administration derailed by distractions. Part of the Clintons experience they bring to this election, is a history of their policies getting sidetracked by the distraction their politics, and other antics, caused.

Submitted by No More Bill on February 8, 2008 - 10:50am.
Neither of you "gets" electoral politics

First of all, to win in 2008, the Democratic nominee only needs to win the states Kerry did in 2004. The GOP and the media ran Kerry down into the mud, but he still won every state he needed save one of two crucial battlegrounds - Florida and/or Ohio.
.
Clinton needs only to win those Kerry states, plus Florida. Florida loves Clinton. Strong populations of Latino voters and older voters - constituencies who support her overwhelmingly.
.
You think certain Democrats will abandon Clinton, but you forget that certain Republicans HATE McCain. He has his own problems with his base. You also forget that his age is a major handicap - it is one of his biggest weaknesses according to opinion polls.
.
Add to that his pro-war position, his admitted lack of knowledge about the economy, and the fact that he is anti-choice (you know how those independent women voters hate that).
.
So enough with this canard that Clinton "can't" win just because you see so much negativity in the media. That was there during the Clinton administration, too, but Bill Clinton handily won reelection in 1996. There has always been a disconnect between the chattering class - the elites - and what the people feel where the Clintons are concerned.
.
Did you not see what the GOP and the media did to John Kerry in 2004? This is a man who is a decorated war veteran, who ran against a man who dodged military service. And they still made him out to be a unpatriotic coward. They will make mincemeat out of Barack Obama, who doesn't have nearly the record of accomplishments Kerry does.
.
Last - Obama won't win the nomination unless he prevents the Michigan and Florida delegates from being seated at the convention. But if he does that, the Democratic activists in those states will turn against him, and won't work very hard to support him in the general. On the other hand, if he supports their quest to be seated, he won't win the nomination. So - he can't win the nomination without ticking off Florida and Michigan, but if he ticks off Florida and Michigan he can't win the election. Its a catch-22 he created for himself.
.
http://thelurkingcanary.blogspot.com

Submitted by Ciccina on February 8, 2008 - 11:13am.
not just privacy

Banning abortion to protect the fetus would also violate a woman's right to due process under the law. Any future justices need to also understand that.

Submitted by ruthless on February 8, 2008 - 8:06pm.
Kate MIchelman

Hey Kate: I supported NARAL all those years while you ran it like a one-woman heirarchy.I made my yearly (or more) donations to NARAL then I watched when you came to town to "mix" with rich Democrats and Republicans at events the average person couldn't afford to attend. I'm on the front lines every week escorting patients into a clinic constantly under siege by anti-abortion fanatics. I'm one of your common foot soldiers General Kate. I actually believed your TALK about how choice empowers women and that how we need more women leaders. Blah Blah Blah. Unfortunately you do the TALK but won't walk the WALK. When it came down to it, you went out of your way to NOT support the woman candidate.

Submitted by MamaFeminist on February 8, 2008 - 10:01am.
Bitter?

Just a bit bitter Mama? Let's stay rooted in the politics that only allows us to see gender, race, class, and division instead of actually believing we can finally realize the promise of a generation of identity politics, and claim victory by moving into an America that respects all people, and demonstrates the hatred of the far right is the minority position in this country. Why must we always resort to the tactics of the far right to tear down people we agree with on principle, but come to different conclusions within our party. This woman, like Ms. Michelman, is supporting Obama precisely because he shows a way past the bitterness reflected here.

Submitted by No More Bill on February 8, 2008 - 10:46am.
What's Up With Kate?

Kate, you just invalidated everything you preached while you ran NARAL. For years and years you told us that a record of standing up for women's rights was of paramount importance in deciding which candidate to support.
.
Now you have kicked in the teeth - TWICE - a feminist leader who has supported women's rights for DECADES.
.
According to you - suddenly - that record doesn't matter.
.
I can't believe you had the audacity (yes) to write "And many who had given up believing that the ideals of equality, dignity and justice would ever again be as politically important as money and power, now believe again." Kate, if what really motivates you is equality, dignity and justice you would be supporting the woman who represented the United States at Beijing in 1995, the woman who pried EC loose from the FDA, the woman who pushed the Violence Against Women Act, the woman who pushed S-CHIP, and the woman who is committed to getting us (truly) universal health coverage.
.
If you really cared about equality, dignity and justice, you'd support the candidate who would make gender equality and development a priority for the United States at the United Nations. The candidate who will not only restore but increase funding for UNFPA. The candidate we know will not back down from confrontations over women's rights, who will not throw our issues overboard in the name of avoiding controversy or seeking "consensus."
.
I think the real secret to your support of Senator Obama lies in these sentences: "Senator Obama is not just prepared to lead ­ as our beloved Teddy and Caroline Kennedy have said, he is prepared to lead in a way different than we have seen for decades. Not out in front with us behind him, but rather with us beside him."
.
Lead not out in front, but with "us" beside him - that's the clue. You see yourself as part of Barack's circle; you don't see yourself as part of Hillary's. Hillary doesn't need you to shore up her feminist credentials - she has her own achievements. But Barack - he needs you beside him. He makes you feel valuable. You are a bigger fish in that pond. He makes you feel good.
.
In other words, you've thrown away the ideals you championed throughout your career because someone strokes your ego.
.
Sad.
.
.
http://thelurkingcanary.blogspot.com

Submitted by Ciccina on February 8, 2008 - 11:00am.
Whats Up with Kate

Sad.... You are so right on. Kate Michelman preached at all of us for all those years while she ran NARAL. We little people gave her all that power. She is the epitome of the Queen Bee - a woman who's got it, wants to preserve it and won't share it. Kate doesn't get to be THE VOICE in a Hillary campaign. She'd have to put on her big girl panties and work cooperatively. If she really believes Barack Obama has done more for women then why didn't she get specific and tell us exactly what it is that he's done. I want action not pretty words.

Submitted by Meno Proud on February 8, 2008 - 4:59pm.