> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# A form of feminism that is dismal at best
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/a-form-of-feminism-that-is-dismal-at-best/
- Published: 2007-04-17T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-24T00:35:21.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*By JOHN MARCIANO lives in Santa Monica.*

THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN (NOW) has revealed the utter bankruptcy of an elitist,“America-first” feminism: Its political action committee endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, despite her pro-war record as a senator.

The lives of Afghani and Iraqi women and their children are not a concern for NOW feminists. The views of social activist Julia Ward Howe — who urged women to unite against war as part of her original call for Mother’s Day in the 1870s — are not an important consideration for NOW members who are thrilled by Clinton’s campaign.

NOW feminists who have been upset about Bush’s wars have forgotten their silence when Bill Clinton bombed Iraq and sustained a sanctions campaign against its people that was called “genocidal” by Denis Halliday, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq who resigned in protest. At least 500,000 Iraqis died, mostly children. Hillary Clinton supported these sanctions over 13 years, as citizen, First Lady and Senator from New York.

The essence of true feminism is internationalist and anti-war — a view clearly not embraced by Hillary Clinton and NOW members. Despite the fact that Clinton has voted for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Patriot Acts I and II, and every dime requested by the Bush regime for those wars and the Pentagon/CIA/National Security State, NOW wants us to believe that she stands for feminist values: Peace, justice and caring for Mother Earth.

Alongside the pathetic NOW endorsement of Clinton, we have the anti-war insights of Cindy Sheehan. Sheehan, who lost her son Casey to the Iraq War, has spoken out against the ongoing slaughter as co-founder and president of Gold Star Mothers for Peace. In a recent article in the Progressive, Sheehan harshly criticized Clinton’s stand on the war, stating that she refuses to support any candidate who is not “courageously and uncompromisingly committed to peace.”

Sheehan quotes a New York Times article that asserts “Clinton’s image as a strong leader... is critical to her hopes of becoming the nation’s first female President. According to one adviser, her internal polling indicates that a high proportion of Democrats see her as strong and tough, both assets particularly valuable for a female candidate who is seeking to become commander in chief. Apologizing \[for her vote in 2002 for war\] might hurt that image, this adviser said.”

After more than 200 years of violent male presidents, Clinton will have to prove that she too can lay waste to nations and peoples.

Sheehan “craves a President who does not aspire to run the empire just like the guys, but who understands the need to dismantle the empire and turn this country into a real democracy instead.” In stating her commitment to peace, Sheehan makes clear that Hillary Clinton “is not that person. She never will be.”

Cindy Sheehan’s critique of Clinton’s militaristic views strikes true; as U.S. President, Clinton will reproduce what powerful white men have given us for 218 years — endless war and repression. She will defend and enlarge the U.S. Empire through aggression abroad, regardless of the human and environmental devastation. Peace and justice feminists and other anti-war citizens, therefore, must in all conscience oppose Clinton and any candidate who does not stand against the current wars and U.S. violence throughout the world — be it military, economic or environmental.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 17, 2007.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/041707.pdf?ref=smdp.com)