THE NEW AGENDA AIN'T BLUFFING!

Aug 18th 2008 8:00AM

Filed Under:eHillary Clinton, Democrats, Barack Obama, John McCain

There's a new group called The New Agenda, and they're coming for you, Chris Matthews. The LA Times reports that the group considers Matthews a good start:

The nonpartisan group, called the New Agenda, held its first meeting this week and established as one of several goals getting Matthews yanked from his long-running show, "Hardball with Chris Matthews."

Amy Siskind of Westchester, N.Y., a founder and Clinton supporter, said the group was urging that Matthews' contract not be renewed because "the kind of language he uses and the kind of behavior he exhibits in the public domain toward women objectifies them and leads to bad things for our society and to domestic violence."

Siskind would not reveal what tactics the group would use to get Matthews off the air. She likened the organization to the Navy Seals, saying their methods would be covert.

The group's press release goes into more detail about The New Agenda's agenda, which is indeed new. The group has a set of issues that they are shopping, but I guess Matthews was the "grabber." I talked with Amy Siskind on Thursday, and she said I should talk to Cynthia Ruccia about The New Agenda, that it's a much more interesting story.

So, I did. It turns out there are lots of "grabbers" to this story.

We talked for hours, and I found her to be very compelling. It would be tough to be fair to her without relaying our conversations in their entirety, because these are tough issues that belie reduction to soundbites. I will write a more comprehensive piece on our interview in the next day or so. Think of this as a primer.

Grabber #1: The New Agenda is pushing a slate of women's issues "beyond Roe v Wade," as Cynthia put it. Amy Siskind summed it up in stronger terms:

"One women's rights issue conspicuously missing from our list: abortion," Siskind points out, adding, "It's not that The New Agenda doesn't view choice as a central women's issue, it's that Roe v. Wade has been used a single defining issue to hold women voters hostage in the past. There are many other issues that are important and relevant to a broad spectrum of women."

The premise is intriguing. In my view, this is sort of a "free market" approach to women's issues. Taking Roe out of the mix essentially breaks the Democratic Party's monopoly on female voters, and allows for competition between the parties for the group's support.

Grabber #2: The group is getting traction with the McCain campaign. Many of the founding members were also founders of various PUMA groups, and attended a meeting with McCain senior policy adviser Carly Fiorina last month to assess the candidate's ability to deliver on important issues.

I contacted Carly Fiorina the week before last to see if they were close to delivering a proposal to that group, and was told by her rep that she would be following up with the group directly.

Again, this is my characterization, but I think The New Agenda is an attempt to step away from the increasingly negative PUMA movement, and harness that energy more productively. They have already made inroads with the McCain campaign, and have a meeting with the Obama campaign this week.

Grabber #3: Cynthia Ruccia supports John McCain. (Her group is non-partisan.) She is a lifelong Democrat, who even ran for congress as a Democrat, but she is supporting John McCain in this election.

I spoke about this on blogtalkradio last night with Christina from Yes to Democracy, and she immediately expressed skepticism about Cynthia's Democratic bona fides, but I have no doubt that she's on the level. There is nothing to indicate that The New Agenda is just a PUMA offshoot. Agree or disagree with them, The New Agenda is a marked improvement on PUMA, whose mission is increasingly about smearing Barack Obama rather than reforming or improving anything.

As I also said last night, the proof in the New Agenda's pudding will be in the tasting. Will they give the Obama campaign an equal shot at their list of issues?

Grabber #4: The New Agenda is a top-down organization, composed now of 30 leaders in business and various professional fields, a "best and brightest" group that seeks to spread into a grassroots movement. Their level of success in doing so will tell the tale of whether ordinary women share their priorities.

Both Cynthia and Amy have touted to me the McCain campaign's promise of appointing more women to his cabinet than any administration in history, pointing to that as something that can definitely be delivered on. Is that worth aligning oneself with a party that is anathema to most women's issues? Cynthia says there is 75-80% common ground on women's issues between Republicans and Democrats.

Grabber #5: Because this is a story about Chris Matthews, I will include a quote from my talk with Cynthia that bears on that. I asked if the group had any plans to seek accountability from McCain and the Republicans for their own sexism and misogyny.

"We, right now, are talking about accountability in the media, and it's one thing at a time," she replied.

I have to say that I am skeptical, to put it mildly, that McCain or the Republicans are going to deliver on the meat of New Agenda's issues, i.e. Fair Pay, domestic violence, accountability for sexism, and paid maternity leave. Having said that, I am at a loss to think of another way to get the Democratic Party to stop taking women's votes for granted.

I'm anxious to hear how the Obama campaign responds, and to see how broad the grassroots support for this group becomes. I hope the Democrats don't go into this thinking they can call New Agenda's bluff. Whatever the strength of their hand, they ain't bluffing.

I am a founding member of this group and so is Amy Siskind who is giving a speech in this video.

Comments

[JustKat]

I am not a PUMA, but I empathize with the anger and frustration they feel.

I have moved on from this election. Not because the Democratic Party TOLD me I should, but because it is time to move from the realm of anger to the realm of action. It is time for women to take a stand for womankind...not just women who are Democrats. I joined The New Agenda because they get that. Whether it is Hillary Clinton, or Sarah Palin , or Cynthia McKinney...whether it is a woman who is pro-choice or pro-life...the sexist attacks against them will no longer be tolerated.

It's just that simple.

[Jackie Obrein]

You'd think with all the serious and fatal problems in this country having to do with women(women's health care issues, women's poverty issues, teen pregnancy, high school drop-out rates etc, that you folks could actually put your energy into something positive instead of undermining the candidacy of Barack Obama and trying to get Chris Matthews fired! Give me a break. Methinks this particular female sorority group is looking for a reason to be angry.

Barack and Hillary have basically the same policies with very little differences. Yet, some of you would rather vote for McCain and the continuation of the Bush policies and all the failures they represent. Certainly, not TRUE democrats.

This convention's not just about YOU!! It's about all Americans and getting Barack Obama elected so we can
get this country back on the right path.

You believe that there was sexism against HC at play during the primary. What about all the negative "kitchen sink" crap (with a side of subtle racism) that Hillary spewed against Obama during her ill-fated and short-sighted campaign? As an independent-thinking 46 yr.old female from the northeast, I'm disgusted at your actions!!

[zrusilla]

I've reacquired a back-to-basics feminist attitude, and I'm glad to see that I'm not alone. Time to focus on the structural changes that will benefit all women across the board. Let's kickstart the fourth wave.

[Renee]

Mam,I met Elliewyatt on a blog today,and she noted you as a very good source for info.It is late,but after a sad day I was about to turn in when I found the following info.I was in a site never visited before,and format a bit unfamiliar to me.I posted the info about an hour and a half agoin a blog,and it got moderated out I think, and I am not sure why ? Any info. please ? This all is too puzzling to me. Site; openline,medialine.com BC-AP News Alert 0104 Washington AP-Here is the exact statement "Senator Barack Obama has sent a text message to supporters indicating he has picked a stephanie Tubbs-Jones as running mate".Today- Aug 20.11:17am.Medialines open line forum.Posted by : Mockingbird ??. Under Tubbs story a bit to find it.Any ideas ? Now I will never fall asleep thinking,and thinking,..

[RedSox04]

I do not consider myself a PUMA, although I do empathize with them. That being said, I think you're missing a key point when you describe them as being increasingly about smearing Obama. The reason, I think, that PUMA is so anti-Obama is that they view him (and the DNC and the Democratic establishment) as pivotal to the misogynistic campaign against Hillary. I think many of us Hillary supporters expected that from the media and the Republican Party, but to see these attacks coming from the Dems was shocking and hurtful.

So yes, PUMA may be anti-Obama, but it's not as if that's coming from blind anger or hatred alone.

[cotton]

I, too, disagree with your characterization of the PUMA movement. When Hillary was being trashed, the ones to step forward and say ENOUGH! were not party elites or feminist organizations but ordinary, everyday people. PUMA is a true grassroots movement. I go to many of the PUMA websites and have since the beginning and, though there is frustration and anger, there is rarely anything offensive or crude. I, a lifelong Democrat, am very proud to be a PUMA.

[Mountain Girl]

I strongly disagree with your characterization of Pumas. They are the warriors breaking open the pathway for others. Without Puma the New Agenda would not even exist, let alone have a voice. We all have to stick together if we want to save our country from a facist regime. We all have are parts to play; putting down Puma is self-defeating.

I, personally, consider myself a Puma, when it is necessary to be a warrior. I also will be voting for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. I agree with The New Agenda that abortion rights is not the only issue, and not even the most important. The most important issue is the economic one: equal pay for equal work. Studies have shown that when women achieve social equality, the birth rate goes down all by itself. In other words, fewer pregnancies.

I consider myself a patriot fighting for our country. It is about to be taken over completely by a bunch of facists If stating that is considered "negative" so be it. Remember, well behaved women don't make history.

[candymarl]

What I find interesting is that any criticism of Obama is referred to as a "smear". The same thing happened during the primaries/caucuses.

Obama can accuse people of racism , without proof, but that's not a smear.

People, not just PUMA members, have reported receiving death threats when they criticize Obama. Some of them have gone silent.

It's funny how CNN and the MSM were quick to report any threats or epithets directed at Obama or his supporters.
They haven't reported any threats or epithets against Hillary or her supporters.

As to the death threat in the linked video. The person speaking didn't make the call she received it. She should report it to the FBI or Secret Service. Did she? I don't know and the clip doesn't say. But the author at the AOL site is accusing PUMAs of becoming dangerous because of a phone call made TO a Hillary supporter.

I hope the PUMAs are ready for the back lash I see coming. They will be characterized as a bunch of dangerous smear merchants. Anti-Hillary folks have accused her of murder and recycled all the RW anti-Clinton talking points. But let's not mention that.

I've warned PUMAs and others to stick to what they can prove. Otherwise they will ridiculed as a bunch of whack-job conspiracy theorists.