• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    katiebird on Serial: I think I figured it…
    katiebird on Serial: I think I figured it…
    katiebird on Serial: I think I figured it…
    strangelybrown on Serial: I think I figured it…
    riverdaughter on Serial: I think I figured it…
    elliesmom on Serial: I think I figured it…
    katiebird on All Roads Lead to Jay
    riverdaughter on All Roads Lead to Jay
    katiebird on All Roads Lead to Jay
    katiebird on All Roads Lead to Jay
    katiebird on Getting a jump on Serial,
    riverdaughter on Getting a jump on Serial,
    katiebird on Getting a jump on Serial,
    katiebird on Getting a jump on Serial,
    riverdaughter on Getting a jump on Serial,
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama big pharma Bill Clinton Chris Christie cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Joe Biden John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Keith Olbermann Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare occupy wall street OccupyWallStreet Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    October 2012
    S M T W T F S
    « Sep   Nov »
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

    • Hey girl
      Carole King with the song she wrote for Freddie Scott:
  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • A word on Abenomics, QE and doing Stimulus right
      Quantitative Easing, to put it simply, no matter what form you do it in, is only marginally effective. Most of the money goes to the rich, you may or may not get a technical win in GDP, and in many cases the money may flow out of the country. If you want to improve the [...]
  • Top Posts

Let’s examine Obama’s remarks on women’s issues on Tuesday, shall we?

Thanks for coming out tonight, ladies

I see that there are number of bloggers who are falling all over themselves trying to make it sound like Obama’s comments on women were somehow better than Romney’s “binders full of women” memorable moment.  Disclaimer: I don’t like Romney, not planning to vote for him, think Republicans in general are full of s^&* and think that if you vote for a Republican instead of a third party candidate because you are still pissed about 2008, you need to have your head examined.  If you’re still angry and disappointed with the Democrats for giving us a non-Democrat for president, vote third party. It’s the only way to get through to the assholes.  You’re doomed no matter whether you vote for Obama or Romney in 2012, let’s just be honest about that.  Ok, disclaimer out of the way…

I knew it was coming.  The minute the question came about how the candidates intended to rectify inequalities in the workplace for women, I could picture the robotic elf in Obama’s brain reaching for Lilly Ledbetter. That automaton was planted there by Plouffe or Axelrod as the thing that THEY think is the surefire solution to placating the ladies, like we can’t trust our lying eyes when we look at our (non-existent) paychecks. Yeah, mansplain Lilly Ledbetter to them again.  Once again, we heard about how it was the *first* thing he signed when he was in office.  He made it sound like he fought for it, gave passionate speeches in support of it, twisted Joe Lieberman’s arm, threatened, cajoled, pled, begged the recalcitrant House Democrats to vote for it for the sake of his old, uncomplaining granny.

But no, that is not what happened was it?  The truth is that Lilly Ledbetter fell into his lap.  It was the first thing he signed because it was almost the first thing on his desk after he took the oath of office.  And THAT, Ladies and Gentlemen, is where Obama stopped doing anything for women.  Signing Lilly Ledbetter, that law that allows women to pursue a claim of pay discrimination without time limits was the first and last thing he did to correct inequity in the workplace.

Lilly Ledbetter was a consequence free vote for legislators.  You may have the right to still file a lawsuit but to do it means you need to ask human resources for the salary information and what woman in her right mind is going to do that?  Did Lilly Ledbetter make it mandatory for companies to post that information for everyone to see without identifying themselevs by asking and risking retribution or poor performance evaluations?  So, Lilly Ledbetter does not put the law on womens’ side after all.  It’s very limited and you’d have to be nuts to risk your job to put it to use.  Employers have nothing to fear.  Just ask the thousands of Walmart female employees who have been protesting gender inequality for years and lost another case as recently as yesterday. There was another more important bill on paycheck fairness that never passed and as far as I know, Obama’s attitude was “meh”.  The bill failed to pass the Senate this past June.  Please note that the Democrats are in the majority in the Senate and even though they no longer have a filibuster proof majority like they did in 2009-2010 when passing the Paycheck Fairness act would have been easier, they still have enough votes to make obstructing it very painful for the Republicans.  The Democrats didn’t do it and I can’t remember Obama marching down to Capital Hill to make life difficult for anyone who didn’t get onboard.  Wake me when Obama puts as much energy into that as preserving a banker’s bonus.  By golly, if Congress threatened to take away a bonus, you can bet your ass Geithner and the bank lobby would snuff that initiative out toot sweet but fairness for more than half the country’s population?  Nope.  Not a problem.  If he isn’t screaming bloody murder about the Paycheck Fairness act before the election, then I think we can just forget about Obama having any intention of addressing gender inequalities.

Integrity means putting your actions at the service of your words.  Obama didn’t.

What Obama did say during Tuesday night’s debate was the same STUPID personal story about how his granny was stiffed by her own employer and didn’t complain.  This seems to be a bit of a pattern with the Obamas.  If you ask for justice and fairness, you’re a whiner.  Michelle told us about how teachers worked for free in bankrupt school districts.  They didn’t complain about not having the means to feed their own kids, they just did their patriotic duty.  Isn’t that special?  It reminded me of the patriotic sacrifice of thousands of banking vice presidents, analysts and associates who, at Obama’s request, gave up their bonuses to save the taxpayers money and as an apology for wrecking the economy.  Oh, wait, that didn’t happen. But women will be expected to sacrifice without complaint in the workplace because I didn’t hear Obama once say that he intended to do anything about the persistent problem of gender inequality.  He said nothing about the Paycheck Fairness bill, he didn’t say anything about the EEOC fanning out to workplaces where there have been complaints filed in order to conduct statistical studies and presenting the employers with a compliance order or a fine in order to get their asses straightened out.  He didn’t have a policy at all like the one we might have heard from a female candidate from his own party.

It was a pathetic answer.  It was a non-answer.  It. Did. Not. Work. For. Me.  And I doubt that many professional women were satisfied with it even if a lot of clueless male bloggers were.  Neither candidate intended to use the law to make sure that women were paid as well as men for the same job.  There was no suggestion that parental leave would be adjusted so that neither parent would be penalized for taking it.  There was no concern over how many fewer women have jobs during this little Depression compared to men.  It’s like they were completely unaware of these problems.

Then there is the accusation from many women in the Obama administration that the White House was a “hostile work environment” for women staffers and appointees.  The man is a hypocrite if ever there was one when it comes to women and the workplace and as far as I can tell, he has no intention of using his power to enforce existing laws or push for new ones.  Indeed, if he is elected, what incentive will there be for him to do anything for women at all?

This election is about giving voters a choice and choices have to do with deciding who is better.  There are many reasons why we should reject Romney, the most significant one being that he is a Republican and Republicans have a recent history of being reactionary assholes when it comes to women.  Ironically, Democrats *also* have a recent history of being reactionary assholes when it comes to women, Lilly Ledbetter notwithstanding.  And by the way, how long did it take for Obama to rescind the Bush Conscience Rule?  Trick question! As far as I know, it’s still on the books.  It has simply been amended. (I take that back.  He finally got around to rescinding it last year.  No, I was right the first time.  It was only “revised”, not rescinded.  Jeez, you would have thought that rescinding it would have been the first thing he did for women after taking office since it didn’t require a Congressional vote.  You would think it would be a no-brainer for him but you would be wrong.)

In this election, I have no reason to vote for either candidate and Obama didn’t give me one on Tuesday night to vote for him.  Obama has not differentiated himself on women’s issues compared to Romney and it is too late to cram.  All nighters will not help him now, well, at least not with me or many other women who got the shaft since 2008.  So, don’t try so hard, left blogosphere.  What do women have to gain from you cheering for Obama? You and I know that Obama offers nothing to women in terms of advocacy or enforcement.  Why not just tell the truth?  Your guy is pathetic on just about everything that’s important to you but you’re scared shitless of what will happen if the Republicans eek out victories in Congress and the White House. But you have been unable or unwilling to make him do anything for you.  He and his backers think they have beaten you and you’re still carrying water for him.  Doesn’t that imply that you’re working for your enemies?

Oh, and one final thing.  Obama made a last desperate attempt to redeem himself with his constituency on the Libya disaster by taking responsibility, praising Hillary and then turning around in the next sentence and saying, “She works for me”.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.  There was the old cock on the walk, stomping all over Hillary, making her look like a weak subordinate woman who not only didn’t have the right to claim responsibility but who he did a great favor by offering her the consolation prize of Secretary of State.  As far as womens’ issues are concerned, he is a dispassionate, unconcerned lightweight compared to her and it is painfully obvious to everyone by now, Naomi Wolf included, that he is not Christmas and New Years and Hannukah or a cape-crusading super feminist.  All that machismo posturing is not a winning formula to me.  But it’s still important to him make sure everyone knows that he beat that bitch. That move right there said all I needed to know about which gender he was reaching out, or reaching around, to keep at that moment and during this election season.

It wasn’t the ladies.

About these ads

22 Responses

  1. [...] has a long post that is well worth the read on how Lily Ledbetter may as well be an interior design firm specializing in window [...]

  2. Well, you can’t spell Obama without the “O” from GOP. He has 99 problems and gender equality is one of them.

    I keep thinking of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Only my story is how Axlerod presented the media elites with a candidate so wonderful only the most enlightened Liberal could see him.

    In closing for the fools who think Democrats give a rats ass about you.

    • Hey! That could be a launchable meme with the right wording.

      He has 99 problems and the Truth ain’t one.
      He has 99 problems and a conscience ain’t one.

      Or whatever wording people like.

  3. Women and children first. Leave it to Obama and Romney to put an evil spin on this age old motto of noblesse oblige. On the Titanic it was women and children from the first class cabins first. Well, Obama and Romney don’t even go that far.

    Not to mention that Obama is also screwing the disabled, something that Romney, no doubt will join in on.

    Yes, Obama is not “color blind”, he exploits black racism and the residue of white guilt for his own personal glory and gain. But the color he really sees is green, not as in environmental, but as in money. He’s the most snobbish, class conscious President of my lifetime. Snobbish, vain, sexist, and nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. Just has some skill at office politics.

    I’m voting Green this time. Again. I wouldn’t vote for either of them in 2008 and I have seen nothing to encourage me to vote for either of them this time around.

    I think Romney won the debate simply because Obama had no answer to the problem of his four years doing too little, too late. Mr. Magoo could win a debate against Obama and his record. Come to think of it, maybe Magoo has won two debates against Obama.

    To quote the punch line from a very old TV show “what a revolting development.” (The Life of Reilly)

  4. “It’s like [the two candidates] were completely unaware of these problems.”

    It’s like you’re paying attention or something, RD. Be careful. That attitude has a Surgeon General’s warning on it.

    • Damn! I can’t help it. I’ve been to too many presentations looking for holes in the data. I’ve been overtrained. I’m ruined.

  5. RD:
    Great writing and good spit it all out the way things still are in our democracy.
    The biggest sign of engrained misogyny is that we may be the richest and more powerful country on the planet but yet it has never had a woman president-queen-prime minister-ruler, commander in chief, whatever.
    It can be noted that even some so-call third world countries have had and have women leaders, -Brazil, Argentina, Chile, to name few.

    Madame Belle told me:
    “Missy, I’m voting third party and for a woman, I will not give my vote for any of those Bozos that do not woo-woo me. I have my self esteem and my own wisdom.”
    So, I have to follow Madame Belle’s advise. I’m voting for Jill Stein.

  6. RD,

    There is a difference between the Rethugs and the Dems, just not enough of one. I noticed too that Obama couldn’t bring himself to say “paycheck fairness Act” the other night. In my opinion, this is because few in his party, including Herry Reid, did anything to get it to pass. I believe that neither dems, nor rethugs wanted it too. But what I really find insulting is how the dems keep touting Ledbetter as if it were the paycheck fairness act. They deliberately talk about it as if it were an equal pay law, rather than a statute of limitations one. Either way, it doesn’t move women forward legistatively from where we were in the 1990s.

    But I have to say, there is a difference. Yes, the Dems suck, but the rethugs suck worse. I’m personally done mourning 2008. And, yes I understand that the DNC stole our votes and screwed our candidate, but I have to move on. There are so many battles to fight and I, like you have a young daughter. I want her to be free to choose, and unfortunately its all we are going to get from the Dems. I’ll probably vote third party, which is safe here in N.Y.

    • I agree that there is a difference between the parties but not these two candidates. Of that I’m pretty sure.
      At this point, the race is pretty tight. I think there is a good chance that Obama could lose. He’s running a Corzine campaign. It didn’t work for Corzine either.
      Back to the differences between the parties. You can see the differences clearly whenever Biden, Bill Clinton or someone like Sherrod Brown or Elizabeth Warren are speaking. So, it’s still there and that’s why I will be voting for downticket Dems. The problem is that the party leadership is not in the hands of the Democrats. It’s in the hands of Wall Street. Read Barofsky’s book Bailout, Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men and Sheila Bair’s book, Bull By The Horns. They all come from different perspectives but they converge on the fact that Obama is captured by Wall Street and that Tim Geithner was brought in to save the banks at all costs. The bankers bought the party leadership apparatus. So, I am convinced that Obama MUST be defeated if there is any hope of freeing up some of the more familiar Democratic party elements. Otherwise, the party will continue to skew right for the next four years.
      We need to disavow Obama and whatever strain of political philosophy he and his advisors adhere to. Yes, it will be painful if Romney wins. But it will only have to be for two years. If we work hard, we can get back Congress.

      • Precisely correct. Obama’s economic policy shop is now entirely run by Wall Street. Initially, there were some independent economists ( Romer, Bernstein, a few others ) but they’ve been chased out. The primary economic goal is to recapitalize the banks. All other priorites rescinded.

        And yes, Obama’s re-election is far from secure. His policies have done nothing to help the public and he’s bearing the fruits of his Wall Street-centric policies.

      • RD,
        I appriciate your coments. But I have to say that Hillary has once again said that she will not be running in 2016, I see no one better on the herizon. I think that the wall street take over of the democratic party happened long before Obama came on the scene. I know its hard too swallow, and as much as I like Bill Clinton, he was part of the corporate take over of the dems. He is on record for supporting Simpson Bowls, etc.. I have to pull up me big girl pants and own that. It hurts, but from all I can tell, it is the truth. All I can hope for is that my child can have the basic human rights that her male counter-parts have. That is the only reason to support the Dems in any fashion. I understand that the Dems rejected Hillary because she wanted equal rights for women and girls, and that prospect was too much for corporate america to handle. We are the MAJORITY and honoring our human rights would mean too many dollars for the boys to bare. But, if you think that Bidon or Bill Clinton are not part of the wall street dems, you are kidding yourself. The poison is larger than Obama and is much older than him. It sucks, leaving us little choices, but I refuse to fall dead. All I can do is to stay true to myself, and continue to fight for what I believe is right.

        • campaigning for Obama here is such a waste of time and energy. Why even bother? There is a difference between being business friendly and being a corporate tool. Obama is the corporate tool and Clinton was simply business friendly.

        • Ok, you really are delusional. There’s a good reason why Obama is president and Hillary isn’t. She wasn’t going to let Wall Street get away with murder. No, no, please don’t tell me how in the pocket of Wall Street they were. If that were true, she would be president. Why not? Wall Street would love for the more competent president to sell their program.
          Her problem was that she wanted to force principle reductions on the banks and the people who bought all those tranches and they weren’t going to yield even one more nanometer on that. She might have thrown some of their asses in jail. Do you have any idea how much money we have promised to the banks?? It’s not just TARP. You would be shocked to know that the banks have an open door policy when it comes to our treasury. They have already been promised full bailouts in the trillions of dollars in the future. They OWN us. Hillary wasn’t going to let them get away with that and Wall Street knew it. In fact, I don’t think even the Republicans would have let them get away with it but Obama was very accommodating to them. you need to read Barofsky’s book Bailout before you make another comment. It had nothing to do with equality. If equality for women made Wall Street money, they’d have been all for it as long as nobody touched their stash.

          • RD,
            I never said Hillary was in the pocket of wall street and you my have a better understanding of the situation than I do, but did you really have to insult me? You called me delusional! I might not be correct on everything I said, but DELUSIONAL? Really? I’ve been coming here for years. I’ve always been respectful, even when I disagreed with you or others. But delusional? That’s a bit harsh for a faithful reader isn’t it?

            I’m fully aware that Obama is facilitating the biggest heist in History. I’m not defending him. I can’t stand him. My point was that others before him were/are also involved. And I don’t think that getting rid of him will make a difference. They will just put someone else like him in his place. I personally don’t think that there is any chance of saving the Democratic party. You obviously feel different about that. And yes, I do know that TARP wasn’t a one shot deal and that the takeover of the US treasury is an open door. In your words, they own us. Of course I know this! I also understand that money rules and that Hillary would not have been complient like Obama is. Yes, I’m sure that’s a huge part, probably the primary reason why she is not the POTUS. I also think that she personally would not sell us out on Social Security, which I think is another reason why they rejected her. I remember her saying many times that it wasn’t broken so don’t fix it. But I think Bill might compromise Social Security. I get that from his own words. I heard him in an interview say that he FULLY supported Simpson-Bowls recommendations. I don’t presume that Bill and Hillary are the same people or hold all of the same views. So, please don’t presume that I lump them together, as you did above.

            As far as the Gender thingy goes, my point was that if Corperations had to comply with equal pay laws, it would cost them lots of money, billions, if not trillions. They clearly don’t want to do that. She would have faught for the pay check fairness act. I’m sure they didn’t want her for that reason too.

            But your right, it wasn’t the main reason they rejected her. Although, I do think it was one of them. I could be wrong, BUT I AM NOT DELUTIONAL! And let me ask you, I’m I no longer welcome here?

          • Are you still commenting??
            I have heard the theory that the Clintons are evil neoliberals who set out to destroy the welfare state and sell everything off to the private sector but I don’t believe it.
            Yes, they did have a different worldview than many Dems. Yes, they thought about solving problems in a different way. Yes, they were friendlier to business. But I don’t think that is a bad thing.
            I think Democrats have gotten into the bad habit of seeing all companies and corporations as being totally, totally evil and I don’t think that’s helpful to anyone. I’ve gone over the shareholders vs stakeholders argument before so you can look that up if you are interested. The problem right now is that owners and shareholders think they should have a greater say in profits and running of companies at the expense of the stakeholders. We let them get away with that but I think the biggest damage was done in the Reagan and Bush years. If you look at all of the statistics of the Clinton years you will see that incomes of most Americans of all classes rose under his administration. This is the thing that the Clinton hating Democrats don’t want you to remember. In fact, I’m not sure these people actually have a point. They’re just angry that we aren’t living in 1968 without the Vietnam War. For progressives, they aren’t into progressing much.
            As far as insulting goes, I think you were the ones who suggested that we didn’t have on our big girl pants.
            We are very realistic here. Go check my latest post. We have always maintained that Obama is a corporate schmoozer. And not there are others on the left who are finally coming around to our point of view and are seeing Obama as he truly is. It won’t be long now before they also realize that they were conditioned to hate Hillary Clinton without any good reason and that they stupidly missed their opportunity earlier this year to put her popularity to use in fighting back. Her career is over. It was over in 2008. She is never going to run for president in 2016 and I don’t know where you’ve been for the last year but we have been saying this over and over and over again. If anyone was planning to vote for Obama because they were told that Hillary was going to run for sure and that she was just being coy about 2016, we have been yelling and screaming for the past year that it was a stupid plan. The party might have replaced Obama with Hillary if they had been interested in winning handsdown this year but they decided to go with Obama and now it’s too late to change the lineup.
            So, maybe you need to do some back reading because you apparently don’t know what we are thinking.

  7. As I’ve said, I’ll be proud to vote for Jill Stein and Sherrod Brown in Ohio.
    It would be great if there were enough of us to send a real message.

    • Those who vote for Stein will find eachother. Those who vote for Anderson will find eachother. Those who vote for that ex-Republican Libertarian governor from New Mexico will find eachother.

      Maybe everyone who voted third party will wear post-campaign buttons saying: Don’t blame me, I voted (insert name here).

  8. I live in Arizona, a fairly safe Romney state. I am voting for Jill Stein. I’m voting for Richard Carmona (D) in a close Senate race, and for the first time since I moved here, the Greens have a candidate on the congressional ballot. I’m in a R+8 district, and the Democrat couldn’t win even in the wave elections of 2006-2008. So, I’m going Green for Congress. I’ll support Dems at the state level.

  9. (I am considering casting my vote for Gary Johnson, the only 3rd party candidate on my ballot) It seems like there’s a chance that a vote for Johnson would make more of an impact than a lonely write in vote for Hillary. (but maybe not)

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: