Is outrage over "picking the new guy over us" absurd?

Anyone who reads Maureen Dowd knows she's been on the Obama bandwagon for quite some time and as all but left to do but to formally endorse his campaign, yet reading a comment in her column:

The New York State chapter of NOW issued an absurd statement on Monday calling Teddy Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama “the ultimate betrayal”: “He’s picked the new guy over us.”

Made me pause...Why it is absurd to for there to be some outrage from the New York Chapter of Now over the non-selection of the female senator from their state? Despite Dowd's belief that "Obama is the more emotionally delicate candidate, and the one who has the more feminine consensus management style", he's not a woman and he's not from New York.

The ironic moment? The New York Times has endorsed Hillary, part of that endorsement that I believe we will start hearing more:

Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.