To the Editor:

The National Women's Political Caucus (NWPC) has advanced political equality for women for 32 years by recruiting, training and supporting qualified pro-choice women for elective office regardless of political affiliation.

NWPC believes Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun's record and long-time commitment to the principles of equality for all Americans make her uniquely worthy of our endorsement.

We know through research that women voters want candidates that speak directly to their concerns. NWPC is committed to building a true political power base for women—one that heeds women's voices.

The editors, while disparaging two veteran women's organizations and the legitimate political aspirations of women to seek the presidency, seem to believe that they are in a better position to decide which candidates are worthy of women's support. In doing so they are the ones guilty of trivializing and demeaning women voters.

—Roselyn O'Connell
President, National Women's Political Caucus
Washington, D.C.

The New York Times' Democratic Problem

To the Editor:

The New York Times has found something to get deeply outraged about. No, not Bush's Iraq lies. No, not Bush's horrific exploitation of the tragedy of 9-11. No, not the total corruption of the U.S. government by Bush. No, the Times is outraged that NOW—the National Organization for Women—and the National Women's Political Caucus have endorsed Carol Moseley Braun for President. Anyone who has watched the debates knows Braun is as articulate and knowledgable as the rest of the field. So does the Times believe Braun is unqualified because she's a woman—or black—or both? In other words, is the Times sexist—or racist—or both?

—Bob Fertik
New York

To the Editor:

I disagree with the Times' condescending assessment that the NOW and NWPC endorsement of Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun's candidacy for president trivializes women's roles in politics. I believe it does the opposite—highlights the importance of having more women candidates in the political arena.

Having credible female candidates in any political race ensures that issues will be raised in a serious manner that would never be raised by other candidates. Similarly, if Al Sharpton was not in this campaign, we would not have the opportunity to hear particular perspectives on important race- and economic-related issues raised in any other than a superficial manner, nor have the benefit of his voice aggressively pointing out problems in the country—and in the Democratic party. The important issues that your editorial plays down—such as pay equity and reproductive choice—as merely "women's issues" are crucial for all Americans, more so now than ever. Yet without a female candidate in the mix, these issues would likely receive only lip service from an all-male line-up.

Throughout the history of women's activism, feminists have been trivialized by the mainstream public. To their credit, feminist political groups ignore this condescension and forge forward. Not surprising, when they support women in political roles, they are damned if they do ... and damned if they don't. When feminist groups endorse a woman candidate, they are criticized: "They are only endorsing her because she is a woman, not on her merits; they can't be taken seriously." When they don't endorse a woman candidate, they are criticized: "How can they endorse a male candidate and not the female candidate? How do they expect voters to take women candidates seriously if the women's groups themselves don't endorse woman candidates?"

American women are tired of the litany: "Sure we would support a women for president, but ... it's not the right time, she's not the right candidate, it's not the right race, she's taking someone else's opportunity," and so forth. But, how could a political group still consider itself legitimate and not endorse a candidate who it has supported through prior campaigns and who has a strong record on the issues it espouses! And, if feminist groups are not upfront supporting women candidates, who else will?

It is the Times editors who have trivialized women, many times over: by disparaging Moseley Braun, an accomplished African-American leader with a strong record of public service, and by ridiculing the work of two vital, reputable political organizations whose members have worked tirelessly to advance women's status. In trivializing Moseley Braun's candidacy and the organizations that endorsed her, Times editors have belittled the aspirations of many American women and girls.

As for "silly" me, I'm glad to see Moseley Braun in the cast of presidential candidates.

—Virginia Kallianes
New York, NY

To the Editor:

NOW is accustomed to having pundits of the far right attempt to dictate our agenda, but it comes as a surprise to find such patronizing high-handedness in an unsigned editorial in The New York Times.

The editors make the accusation that NOW has damaged its credibility by endorsing a candidate whom the editors do not support. It would have been far more damaging to our credibility to abandon our 37 years of principles, not just with the public at large, but with all the candidates we have selected for our support in local, state, and national races. When we have been there for a candidate throughout her electoral history, and she has been there for us, it would be poor judgment indeed to abandon her in the ultimate race.

It will be interesting to observe whether The New York Times heaps similar scorn on other organizations which endorse candidates of whom the editors do not approve, or whether this level of distain is something the editors will reserve for us "silly" women.

Our 1966 charter declares, "The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men." We don't do that by catering to mainstream publications. We do that by altering the course of the mainstream by inserting our presence—women's presence, women's perspective—into the course of the waters that would otherwise tumble over us unheeding. We are the rock in the stream, not the smoothly inoffensive pebbles at the bottom, ground down by public opinion—or the opinion of The New York Times.

In this race, Carol Moseley Braun—black, female, credible, qualified—is another rock in the stream. She deserves our support, we are proud to give it to her, and we will not be moved.

—Gay E. Bruhn, Ed.D.
President, Illinois NOW
Aurora, Ill.

To the Editor:

Those silly, silly girls. What made them think that a woman—particularly a black woman—has any right to run for President, as long as there are "good men" in the race? What made them think that they can endorse anyone they want to? Don't they know that women run for office out of vanity, while men run to make a contribution? Silly girls.

But maybe it isn't NOW and the NWPC with a "woman problem," maybe it's the New York Times. It is the Times that refuses to acknowledge that Carol Moseley Braun has more public support than Senator John Edwards and at least two other men running for President. It is the Times that continues to call Braun "tarnished," despite both her exoneration and the clear proof that her sliming was courtesy of Karl Rove. And it is the Times that trivialized women's roles in politics by calling them "silly."

What a silly—and incredibly insulting—editorial.

—Jeanne K.C. Clark
Executive Director, Women Leaders Online
Pittsburgh, Pa.

To the Editor:

Your editorial regarding the National Organization for Women's endorsement of Carol Moseley Braun's presidential bid is unduly harsh. Win, lose or draw, Braun is advancing the cause of women's right to be on the national and world stage. Millions of young women and girls will have the opportunity to see and hear her debate with her male colleagues and know that Braun is paving the way for them.

—Grace Ripa Welch
Islandia, N.Y.

To the Editor:

I take great issue with your editorial bashing NOW's endorsement of Carol Moseley Braun for President. What is so unusual about a feminist organization endorsing a former U.S. senator and ambassador running for President who also happens to have a flawless record on women's issues?

NOW silly? What is really silly is how the media continues to promote the sexist notion that only a white guy can be a "viable" candidate for President and any other candidates who do not fit this mold must be ignored and trivialized.

—Susan Bramlet Lavin
Springfield, Ill.

To the Editor:

Your attack on Carol Moseley Braun, the National Organization for Women and the National Women's Political Caucus ("NOW's Woman Problem") is insulting and demeaning. If Ambassador Braun—who scarcely exists as a presidential candidate in your "paper of record"—is so tarnished and those who endorsed her so silly, why did you bother with this in the first place? Women are tired of being manipulated by Big Brother—and told who should run, who we should endorse, and who we should vote for. There is nothing trivial about political power of our own, by our own. Indeed, supporting Ambassador Braun is an empowering step forward for women on several levels. After all the mea culpas in the Jayson Blair case, The New York Times should perhaps have done its due diligence—not just on all the facts concerning Ambassador Braun's 30-year public service career and her run for the presidency, but also on the scope and validity of the growing movement for political parity for women.

—Paula Xanthopoulou
President, National Women's Political Caucus of Florida
Miami, Fla.

To the Editor:

Silly? For endorsing a candidate who speaks for our nation's children who increasingly go to bed hungry, attend ill-equipped schools and lack health insurance? For endorsing a candidate who cares that every year as many women and children die as a result of family violence as were killed in the World Trade Center? For endorsing a candidate who understands the concerns of working women nationwide?

What's silly is that the other candidates don't speak of these issues more often.

Serious issues. Serious NOW. Silly, sexist, New York Times.

—Irene Weiser
Brooktondale, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Your editorial ("NOW's Woman Problem," Sept. 14) identified two key reasons for NOW's endorsement of Carol Moseley Braun for President: She has a strong record on women's rights issues and a long relationship with our organization. Isn't that what men's groups consider when they make an endorsement?

If we had endorsed someone else, you would have probably written an editorial accusing us of trading our principles for jumping on the bandwagon of a candidate ahead of her in the polls. NOW doesn't make an endorsement by checking the polls and endorsing the one who's ahead.

Carol Moseley Braun is a well-qualified woman running for President. Her candidacy and supporters deserve to be taken seriously, not treated with the unwarranted bias and patronizing attitude your editorial board has shown.

—Bonnie Grabenhofer
Chair, Illinois NOW PAC
Aurora, Ill.

To the Editor:

The editorial "NOW's Woman Problem" in today's New York Times (Sept. 14) makes your newspaper look not only silly but uninformed and biased. As a NOW member who would have preferred that NOW not endorse Carol Moseley Braun but rather point to the important issues she alone has brought to the presidential debate, I'm sickened by the Times' reference to Moseley Braun's presidential bid as a "vanity affair" and a "personal quest to return to the limelight." As for her 1998 defeat for a second term in the Senate, why did you not point out that it was engineered by the now recognized master of deceit, Karl Rove?

—Kate Swift
Georgetown, Maine