should now pac endorse men??

perusal of the now pac website gives one pause...i can understand why the pac wanted to endorse attorney alan sandals for the pennsylvania u.s. senate seat race, but should it have done so?

in that race the democratic party has shown again that retail politics trump principle. that is not surprising, but certainly disturbing to loyal women party members. the party calls upon women time-and-time again for dollars and countless volunteer hours -- but when push comes to shove, women and their priorities take a back seat...and all in the name of democracy. party leaders and consultants shoved highly-qualified, pro-choice barbara hafer out of the race and pulled in anti-abortion bob casey, jr. to do its bidding in 2006 against rick santorum.

no less apalling was a fundraiser for casey held in philadelphia on march 27th by former secretary of state madeleine albright and co-hosted by the nine democrat women u.s. senators (yes, that would be all of them) -- in the name of showing that it was ok for women to support mr. casey. were any of those women senators at least holding their nose?

the sandals' campaign isn't going anywhere and will be over on may 16th -- but until then, women will expend energy and resources on a candidacy doa. now does have its principles, but do cast-in-cement principles and politics really mix? do now pac's pledge to "elect feminists" and "rigorous" criteria really serve the cause of women? for every man now pac endorses, attention and $$$ are taken away from women candidates who they may also endorse but not help very much. why can't limited resources go to empowering women?

the democratic party should temporarily suspend its (oft-ignored) "no endorsements in primaries" rules to help propel women into more OPEN SEATS between now and 2020 --but now pac should do its part by not endorsing men during that period either, in order to throw all its resources to women who meet their criteria.

what women need is a political power base of our own, our fair share of seats at decision-making tables in congress and elsewhere. past history has shown that surrogates and their promises are not the answer -- and even though women might also disappoint on occasion, it's time for women to go all out supporting women for the sake of parity and changing the course of this nation.

what do we have to lose?