Writing at the intersection of motherhood, feminism and my Latinidad

20 June 2009

Live blog: 2009 NOW Natl Conference - Plenary V

Scheduled to speak: Rev. Dr. Katherine Ragsdale, Dr. Julianne Malveaux and Kim Gandy


**edited on Sunday, June 21, 2009**

sorry to anyone who came to view a live blogging of this session. I made an executive decision to skip this plenary for many reasons. One of which had to do with getting dinner early so I could vote early and then the kid and I could hit the pool. The other was that my arms and hands were tired.

Of course I do wish I had attended, not just for the speakers, whom I heard were excellent. But because apparently, from what I gather, Kim Gandy was asked about a handout that was circulating that showed NOWs finances plummeting. She said that it was a product of Sarah Palin followers. I was told it was from the O'Neill campaign. Someone told me they heard that Kim said that anyone backing the O'Neill campaign were Sarah Palin backers. Again, I did not attend this event.

I doubt that Kim said everyone who backed the O'Neill campaign were Sarah Palin supporters. I do know that there is enough evidence in the blogosphere, which I won't link here, shows that there were Palin supporters supporting O'Neill's campaign. Does that make O'Neill the Palin campaign? No. But it does mean that the Palin supporters are still angry that NOW and Kim Gandy did so much to elect Barack Obama.

I'll be in attendance to see the 9 am plenary this morning because I do owe it to my readers. I owe it to Latifa Lyles campaign. And I do respect Terry and Erin. I need to get to know Allendra, but one of my dear NOW friends has high respect for her, so I have high hopes for her leadership.

5 comments:

Hi Veronica:

Hey, I was at the Blog Breakout session today. You showed and offensive tee-shirt (don't recall the logo) and you're response to the idiots that make it, and then their 10% off response. Which Blog site was that on, I wanted to send it to my daughter. Great Session.

Dennis Blanchard k1ypp@yahoo.com

While you have identified a couple of groups of people, there is one you have left out -
People who did not want NOW to endorse Obama. I belong to that group. I protested Pailn, filed a formal (accepted) grievance against a Palin supporter.
I got on board with Obama, as both the Clintons advised. I do not relate as a PUMA.
The NOW women I know and work with did not want NOW ENDORSING anyone, as has been the case in most presidential elections. Actually, now I kinda wish I voted Green - two WOC who I agree with more than BO.
Anyway, being anti - the PAC endorsement does not equal PUMA or Palin - there are other thoughts.

Dennis - It was on Feministing. Here's the response t-shirt link http://www.feministing.com/archives/008708.html

Zoe - You are correct. I never meant, nor do I think I did, paint all of terry's supporters as PUMAs. But we do need to acknowledge and figure out what to do with the fact that an outside group, for the most part I believe, used our elections to rally their supporters and try to sway the oldest and largest feminist group in the USA.

I wrote a piece last year about how Palin was good for feminism because it would require us to have a conversation about who is a feminist. http://www.workitmom.com/bloggers/momsonissues/2008/09/02/why-sarah-palin-is-good-for-feminism/

Also, I'll be speaking at Blogher about how we define pro-woman in a post-Palin world. So I'd love to hear more of your thoughts. I'll blog about just that soon!

"outside group"???because they don't support Kim Gandy? the so-called PUMAs were members of NOW in good standing that objected to Kim and Latifa running the organization--financially--- into the dirt. Gandy attacked them from the podium--and wouldn't let them speak because they were publicizing NOWs 40% drop in members and $1mm decline in membership revenues.
THAT WAS THE STORY.

"outside group"???because they don't support Kim Gandy? the so-called PUMAs were members of NOW in good standing that objected to Kim and Latifa running the organization--financially into the dirt. Gandy attacked them from the podium--and wouldn't let them speak because they were publicizing NOWs 40% drop in members and $1mm decline in membership revenues.
THAT WAS THE STORY.