Earlier today, lambert posted a piece about an effort by some women Clinton supporters to form a non-partisan group, called The New Agenda, to advance the interests of women in the wake of the sexism displayed during the primary. I have no idea whether this group, like the PUMAs will turn into anything in the long run. I do believe, however, that such groups are a good thing. Anger is a powerful motivator in terms of political organizing and action (which is why we so often hear politicians telling us to get over it). And there are a lot of angry women right now. To which I say - good.

That The New Agenda is non-partisan is also a good thing. Too often when issue advocacy becomes tied to one party, the issue is the thing that loses. (See NARAL) And one of the important lessons from this year's primaries is that sexism and tolerance of sexism is not limited to people with an (R) after their name. It got so bad that Melissa McEwan coined the term fauxgressive for those who seemed to think sexism is a progressive value. (I wish I could say it was a struggle to come up with all of these links.)

What's more, New Agenda does not limit its support for women to Roe. This is key, IMO. The only reason we get beat up with Roe is because the Democrats have caved on virtually every other issue that would make women’s lives better. It’s the same with minorities and affirmative action. They’ve backed off every policy that would help make society more equal and have allowed both Roe and affirmative action to be narrowed to the point of near uselessness for many people, but hey if you don’t vote for us in November you won’t even have this one pathetic thing. Fuck that noise. Sadly, I think women will have to inflict pain on the Democrats to get any attention on their issues and that always risks making a Republican president, which is worse for women in the short run. But right now, we’re on a long run to watching our rights erode as people who take credit for protecting them don’t actually protect them and many have shown themselves to either hate women or be perfectly fine with people who hate women.

One of the best pieces of writing I’ve seen about how the Supreme Court argument reveals how bad Democrats have treated women and people of color comes from Adolph Reed, Jr., in The Black Agenda Report:

I’m increasingly convinced that the courts issue looms so large because the liberals have given away everything else. It feels ever more the property of Dem hacks who have to strain to find any basis for plausible product differentiation during election season. (A friend used to maintain that there’s so little difference between the two parties in this bipartisan era that people determine their allegiances in the same ways they sort themselves into Ford and Chevy people. Now I think it’s more like Buick v. Pontiac; they have the same structure and frame, same engine, and same chassis design - just different flourishes and labels.) It’s a deal-maker only if you accept the premise that formal preservation of Roe v. Wade is the paramount issue, the sine qua non, of gender justice in the United States or that holding on to the shreds of a mangled, “mended” version of affirmative action is the same for blacks. Those two areas don’t stand out so much when you add up everything the Dems have caved on that has more directly injurious effects on black people and women, often with more direct and persisting impact on reproductive freedom - or “choice” in the liberals’ capitulationist parlance - and economic security than abortion rights, which are exercised, at best, episodically, and affirmative action, the meaningful scope of which is effectively reduced by retreats in other policy areas. For openers, just think of comparable worth, welfare reform, publicly supported child care, cuts in Federal urban aid, education, the War on Drugs, NAFTA, the ethnic cleansing program of HOPE VI, corporate health care, privatization, abetting union-busting, fetishizing deficit reduction, as only among the most obvious areas where they’ve rolled over. For most blacks and women, most of the time, abortion rights and affirmative action are at best more symbolic than practically meaningful, particularly in a context in which in all those other areas that affect their lives directly, the Dems have already given away the store.

Trying to stoke hysteria around abortion rights and affirmative action looks more and more like a feeble attempt to deflect attention from that fact, and to convince people who don’t stand to get much from a Dem victory that they should commit to them anyway - for the sake of those who do stand to benefit. I’ve finally realized what this move is all about: what makes the Dems every four years “better” is always something that the hacks and yuppies are likely to imagine getting if they win, and their disgusting moralizing about the imperative to vote for their “lesser evil” - which means “I may get what’s important for me, but you have to recognize that what you need is naïve or impractical” — is all about bullying the rest of us into believing we have an obligation to vote for what’s good for them.

Don’t get me wrong, reproductive freedom is key to women’s liberation, but Roe is not the end all, be all of reproductive freedom. Birth control access, paid maternity leave, and paid sick leave and family leave (women tend to have more health issues and are more likely to care for young children) are all part of that choice. Driving six hours across state lines to have an abortion isn't exactly freedom, IMO. Of course, if your pharmacist hadn’t refused to sell you emergency contraception, you might not need an abortion, but his religious freedom to oppress you is more important than your control over your own body.

According to the report lambert posted, Howard Dean is now calling the Democratic women at the New Agenda and seems surprised by their anger at the party. I’m not surprised Dean is just now waking up. Many in the liberal establishment are clueless, including Dean.* As the women of The New Agenda said this is bigger than Hillary Clinton. It's also bigger than Barack Obama. This is about the Democratic Party's comfort with sexism and misogyny.

It's amazing (and telling) that it seems never to occurred to Democratic leaders that their silence in the face of sexism and misogyny would piss off a lot of Democratic women. That there would be a political price for their silence. This alone is telling since as Violet Sock has pointed out, it's hard to imagine any other bloc of voters being treated this way by the party.

But here's the thing that a lot of women know about sexism and misogyny - it's dangerous, like all hatred is. And letting it run free in the American bloodstream is bad for all women and not just Hillary Clinton. As I've said before:

I have long believed the most dangerous thing about this primary was the misogyny, especially aimed at older women, running rampant unchecked by Obama or the Democratic Party. You can’t simply put that back up in its cage now that the nomination is over. That kind of hatred spewed into the culture is bound to affect the culture and change it in ways that are not positive.

Obama may very well want to stop this now, but I’m not sure this monster is still within his control. But then that’s what always happens when you accept help from a monster, it eventually turns on you. What? Obama and the Democrats thought Frankenstein was really about a scientist who built a monster from dead people?

Not that the Democrats seem to really want to stop it. They seem more interested in just having us shut the fuck up so they can have their sexism and women voters, too. I think it’s telling about where the Democrats are headed that almost every single VP selection name floated has been hostile to many women’s issues or has a lousy record. Biden with Anita Hill. Kaine, Hagel, and several others are anti-choice. Even if none of these people end up the nominee, I think it’s telling that they don’t care how it looks to women that the VP short list sucks on women’s issues. They’d rather suck up to Rick Warren.

And so I’ve just about had it with pious lectures from Democrats about how much worse McCain will be. A women’s political action group separate from both parties that cares only about issues seems absolutely crucial to me. As Melissa McEwan noted when Kaine was picked to give the response to the SOTU (then the issue was his gay baiting and support for Virginia’s noxious amendment stripping gay couples of rights):

Some of the commenters at Pam’s place are arguing, “Gay rights isn’t the only issue.” True enough. But let me respond to that notion with this: Taxation without representation was an important enough issue for this country to declare its independence and fight a Revolutionary War. Equal rights was an important enough issue for this country to split into two and fight a Civil War. If you enjoy representation and equality as a result, you need to take a long look in the mirror and consider what it means that you’ll gladly give up someone else’s rights to the same without a fight.

And if that still doesn’t make you give a flying shit about this, then consider instead that in the Dems’ move rightward as they chase an elusive victory, they’re willing to throw gays to the wolves—and women’s right to choice is next on the chopping block. Already we’re seeing Dems who support disastrous legislation like parental notification laws or are openly pro-life, if not explicitly anti-choice. What’s next? Who’s next? What will be your turning point before you finally stand up and say enough as enough?

If you’ve ever wondered why moderate Republicans and genuine conservatives didn’t do more to stop their party from disintegrating into the sorry state of hateful anti-Americanism it has become, maybe it was just because they were willing to sacrifice too much to win, and realized only after it was too late at what a steep cost such a victory comes.

To be clear, I have no idea whether the New Agenda or the PUMAs or any of these groups will grow into anything, so what I’m cheering is the fact that women (and some men) who were upset with the primary process are working towards figuring out how best to express that anger and change things. I’m particularly heartened to see women discussing how to organize and exercise political power. Not everyone will agree on the best way, especially this year, but I’m looking past the election and many of these women appear to be as well. How do you get both political parties to do more for women? Sure, the GOP is naturally hostile, but that doesn’t mean that some gains can’t be made or the damage lessened. We cannot simply rely on the Democrats as a party (as opposed to individual Dems) to provide some huge pushback can we?**

There will be some ratfucking in these new groups, but that’s inevitable. Political parties always try to take advantage of the perceived weakness of their opponent. Why do you think Obama is sucking up to Warren? Because the CW is that McCain isn’t strong with the evangelicals (I suspect the CW here is as wrong as it usually is, but the Dems love listening to it). The main thing that’s heartening to me is that women are trying to do something. Whether it turns into anything or not, who knows, but I admire and respect the attempt.

And I do think this kind of loose affiliations is the best right now as people feel their way through this thing - trying to figure out who are their natural allies and what tactics they can agree on. Different folks will advocate different things and I suspect, as a result, different organizations or affiliations will shake out as a result (and during that shake out, I suspect a lot of the ratfuckers will be identified and fall by the wayside).

* One of the dumbest things I’ve seen was a panel with that chick from the Nation, Kristen van Whatever, at Emily’s List. It was the day that Dean finally -FINALLY - said something about the sexist media coverage, after Hillary had conceded of course and when she referenced it as if this was some great thing, Dean’s name got booed. She seemed surprised by it and asked if it was about Florida and Michigan. It clearly was not. Finally, someone explained to her that it was because Dean had sat silent until the primary was over and then acted like he suddenly discovered the sexism. To her credit, Salon’s Rebecca Traister knew exactly why women were angry with Dean and the party and said that one of the things that needed to be discussed was how not all of the misogyny came from the media and the right and why it was only after Hillary conceded that the sexism could be discussed at all.

** If you do expect it, let me remind you one more time that the Dems have shown no restraint in actively touting sexist assholes many of whom are hostile to reproductive freedom as potentially wonderful picks for VP, see e.g., Biden, Hagel, Kaine, while dissing Hillary Clinton. This is not some happy accident. It’s a sign of which voters the Democratic Party cares about making happy.