• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Beata on Satellite Distraction
    jmac on Satellite Distraction
    jmac on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    Propertius on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    William on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    Beata on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    William on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    jmac on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    Beata on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    jmac on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    Propertius on Ukraine and Obama: it ain’t…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Ukraine and Obama: it ain’t…
    jmac on Ukraine and Obama: it ain’t…
    riverdaughter on Ukraine and Obama: it ain’t…
    eurobrat on Ukraine and Obama: it ain’t…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump 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 John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove 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 OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    September 2011
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

    • Leaky as hell
      'Burn bags,' logs and personal emails: Supreme Court security even worse than leak investigation showed https://t.co/uSM4l6WEU6 — Travis Gettys (@wirecan) February 4, 2023
  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – February 5, 2023
      Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – February 5, 2023 by Tony Wikrent War Russian Foreign Ministry Rejects Blinken and Nuland Proposals, Condemns Scholz for Reviving Hitler’s Plan to Destroy Russia  John Helmer [Dances with Bears, via Naked Capitalism 1-29-2023] The Russian Foreign Ministry has dismissed proposals issued this week in Washington by US Secretar […]
  • Top Posts

Excuses, excuses

Why *this* picture?

I don’t know why I am surprised at this but it looks like some of the lefty blogosphere guys are circling the wagons around Obama over Anita Dunn’s allegations that the White House could have been in court over the hostile working environment for women.  Kevin Drum is the latest to try to defend the president’s honor:

There really do seem to be legitimate complaints on this score, but on one of the most dramatic quotes about this, there’s a striking mismatch between what Ron Suskind heard and what he reported in his book. Here’s what he said he was told by former White House communications director Anita Dunn:

Looking back, this place would be in court for a hostile workplace….Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace for women.

But here’s the full quote:

I remember once I told Valerie [Jarrett] that, I said if it weren’t for the president,this place would be in court for a hostile workplace….Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.

This doesn’t necessarily change the substance of the charge about the White House atmosphere — though it might, depending on what Dunn meant — but it definitely changes what it suggests about Obama himself. Why on earth did Suskind leave that bit out? It’s only eight words, and it’s not as if he was short on space.

Yes, let us split hairs, Kevin, and turn this into another kerning dispute.

Do the eight words matter?  I’m listening to the book right now and I haven’t gotten to that part but from other posts I have read on the details, I would say, No, the eight words are not that important in the whole scheme of things.

From what I can tell, the infractions were obvious early on.  They included meetings that women were not invited to attend, expertise not listened to and a distinct lack of direction from Rahm Emannuel, who failed to signal to the campaign leftovers that election season was over and some of these women were their seniors. The women staffers initially attempted to get Obama’s attention but he brushed it off as an artifact of the campaign.  Then, they went to Valerie Jarret, who, IMHO, took exactly the wrong approach and attempted to “pinkify” the female experience at the White House with women only activities and baby showers.

From my own perspective as a female in a male dominated industry, I have something to say about this.  I don’t think women are that put off by the occasional F-bomb.  It’s a little startling the first time you hear it but you get used to it and then feel comfortable slinging it around.  Throwing footballs around in the office?  Also not a problem as long as they’re the Nerf variety and you are not made to play monkey-in-the-middle.  It’s the power plays that are going on in the background to which no woman is invited that is the single most irritating, infuriating and unfair thing about working with guys.

It wasn’t always this bad and from the two companies I have worked for, it seemed to me that the problem was worse at the international company compared to the American company. But even a lot of American guys still act like any promotion of women in their midst is a direct threat to their affirmative action program for white men.  You can’t hire one single woman more than they think is acceptable before they start whining about how “more qualified men” were overlooked as if we didn’t already have more than our share of mediocre men in our midst.  Come on, Kevin, Ezra, Josh, Ta Nehisi, it’s true, isn’t it?  How many prominent writers that are quoted at length on our lefty blogosphere are women?  It’s always the same *guys* who are working at The Atlantic, WaPo and Mother Jones.  Digby is getting her share now but it took a long time for her to get off her asteroid in the Oort Belt and into mainstream circulation and she is a much more perceptive writer than someone like Ezra Klein who seems to be adopting the values and attitudes of his editors and mentors.  Anyway, I digress.

I suspect that for women working in the White House, there was a sense that things had already been decided before they entered the meeting room.  There were unannounced meetings in someone’s office where projects were discussed, strategies planned, and work divided up that underlined the impression that the women who were supposed to be doing that work were not very relevant.  Am I right, ladies?  I suspect that Obama’s lieutenants had proteges and they were not female.  And those proteges were given a lot of responsibility and airtime to make themselves look important and responsible and trusted with information that women did not have access to.  Their executive hair was already sprouting.  And here were these women, come from academia and prestigious positions of their own who were sidelined.  They study and work very hard to become experts at their subjects and they are upstaged by some male asshole who seems to have the ear of the most powerful people in the room.  Well, that’s what it sounds like from what I have read.  How did *that* happen??

So, they took their complaints to Obama and he ignored them.  It’s not that they were not being assertive enough.  It’s that the lines of authority had already been established and they were established between the senior and junior men and not the women.  And who could blame them?  It is human nature for people to gravitate to people most like themselves.  Men will choose to hang out with men because it’s more comfortable.  That’s why it is so important for the guy at the top to set the tone with his direct reports and make the rules so that this doesn’t happen and everybody doesn’t waste their time, make bad decisions and suck up taxpayer money.  But in Obama’s White House, Rahm, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner were the head honchos and, apparently, they didn’t get the memo that they were supposed to pivot away from outrageous sexist behavior to a more professional working environment.  With the exception of Hillary Clinton, how many times have we seen pictures of meeting rooms in the White House where all of the participants were male?  More than *I* can count.

The meetings with Jarret went on until the women finally had a dinner with Obama in November 2009.  That’s almost a whole year before he finally got around to taking them seriously and it was a very important year in terms of the economy. In the meantime, Obama continued to have pick up basketball games with the guys.  What’s up with that, anyway?  Couldn’t anyone find a bat and a softball so everyone could play?  And baby showers, Valerie?  Really?  Even in my workplace, men attend baby showers.  It sounds like males and females were even more segregated in the White House than they are in some uncomfortably hierarchical international companies. What we had was an attempt to suburbanize the experiences of the genders where the men had the equivalent of hanging out in the garage and the women sat in the living room and talked about their labors and deliveries.  It’s so dumb I’m surprised the women went along with it. Maybe it made the personal experience bearable but I can’t see how it made the professional experience better. Jarret and Obama should have worked harder to provide more opportunities for the sexes to mix so that they saw each others as human beings with similar interests and aspirations.

So, maybe Obama was the only thing that spared the White House from landing in court.  On the other hand, what were the women supposed to do?  If you can’t get the President to enforce an open and transparent working environment, what makes you think you’re going to get better treatment at the EEOC?  And the Supreme Court has recently ruled that the women of Walmart, who were experiencing the same kind of bullshit on a much vaster scale, didn’t have anything in common to bring a class action suit.  If the dudes aren’t groping you in the hall closet, if you’re only complaint is that opportunities are passing you by, you haven’t got a case.  So, that’s that.

Really, it’s shocking that the guys of the lefty blogosphere haven’t caught on to the pernicious way that the misogyny of the 2008 primary season has added to the hostile environment of the workplace for professional women.  I could swear that the problem has gotten worse, or maybe I’m just more attuned to it these days, but it seems to me that the unchecked sexism of the 2008 election season has given guys the green light to act with impunity in the workplace. When forcing a female manager out of her position or  laying off junior staff who mostly happen to be women could mean the end of careers, some of these guys may be getting away with murder.  Why are guys like Kevin Drum so quick to defend other guys for this kind of behavior unless they were themselves benefitting from the backroom deals and male exclusion zone?  Are they feeling any kind of ping of conscience for taking advantage of advantages that are not available to women?  Is Barack Obama so insensitive and conditioned that he thought some of his most talented women were just bitching over pick up basketball games?

Like I said before, everything can be measured.  That’s where the truth of the matter will manifest itself.  In these days where everything is digitally recorded somewhere, there is no need for the “he said/she said” defense.  Honest, well intentioned people who value fairness will want to get to the bottom of this problem in the most objective manner possible.  Would that include Kevin Drum?  Let’s get the data from the emails, phone calls and meeting appointments.  Let’s see who sequestered information and whose requests for information were ignored.  Let’s roll the tape on the way meetings were conducted.  Let’s see who got the plum assignments and from whom.  Let’s see who was described in terms of acceptable social behavior and who was praised for accomplishments.  And then let’s develop some guidelines so this doesn’t happen in the White House, or any other place of business, ever again.

If Suskind’s book sheds some much needed daylight on the way women are treated in the workplace, he will have done us all a big favor.  I can tell you that the first chapter, focussing on the way Timothy Geithner treated Elizabeth Warren, had my blood boiling.  I’m betting that he could have never gotten away with this if she were a man.  Same with Hillary Clinton, although, now that she has proven herself to have a set of three titanium testicles by surviving a lot of outrageous sexist behavior, she seems to have won some sort of grudging respect.  But no woman should have her expertise and credentials sidelined in order to preserve a hidden hierarchy and mentoring system to which she has no chance of belonging.

The answer is no, Kevin.  Dunn’s extra eight words didn’t significantly change the meaning and Obama didn’t make things better.  If he had made things better in the beginning when it first came to his attention, this crap would have never made it into the book. Dunn’s allegations were hardly the only ones.  The inattentiveness to their complaints reinforces our perception of Obama as being a poor manager who doesn’t set a good example and doesn’t care how his female employees are treated.

But we suspected that before the election.  Now, we know for sure.

UPDATE:  I followed this link from Eschaton to a Elizabeth Warren video.  Remember, according to sources close to him, Tim Geithner was planning to develop an “Elizabeth Warren Strategy” which was to be “a plan to engage with the firebrand reformer that would render her politically inert.”  But he settled for barring her from running the agency she created.  Geithner’s got to go.


Pass it around.

And here’s her website where you can make a donation and keep the firebrand burning:  Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts

51 Responses

  1. Speaking of Warren:

    So today is a long-delayed victory for Warren—almost. Somehow nothing in the Rose Garden is quite as it seems. The president praises Warren, whom he says he met at Harvard Law School, as though they are old friends. They’re not, and Warren only became a professor at Harvard Law the year after Obama graduated from it. In fact, over the past two years, while Warren has seen herself lionized on magazine covers and in prime-time interviews as a leading voice for tough, restorative reforms, the president seems to have been studiously avoiding her. Part of the problem, clearly, is that she has been acting the way people expected and hoped that man from Grant Park would.

    This has caused discomfort not only for the president, but also for his top lieutenants, including the boyish man in the too-long jacket at Obama’s right hip, bunched cuffs around his shoes, looking more than anything like a teenager who just grabbed a suit out of his dad’s closet. That’s Treasury secretary Tim Geithner, looking sheepish. Only those in his inner circle at Treasury, though, can precisely read what’s behind that expression: a string of private efforts across the past year to neutralize Warren. The previous fall, Geithner huddle with top aides to develop what one called an “Elizabeth Warren strategy,” a plan to engage with the firebrand reformer that would render her politically inert. He never worked out a viable strategy—a way to meet with Warren without drawing undesirable comparisons—and so, like the president, he didn’t.

    What the Treasury Department did do, unbeknownst to Warren, was embrace demands from the banking industry to create a bureau under the condition that Warren would not be allowed to lead it.

    • Yeah, he’s a real prick, not just to Warren but to all of us who have to pay usurious interest rates and outrageous fees for absolutely everything these days.
      He needs to be fired. ASAP

  2. Then, they went to Valerie Jarret, who, IMHO, took exactly the wrong approach and attempted to “pinkify” the female experience at the White House with women only activities and baby showers

    Of course her answer was to control the women and keep them from bothering the guys. Jarret is not putting herself on the line for the low end of the totem pole..

    Great post, but the left male dismisal of women is legendary … well before 08. It created the 70’s women movement when women protesters in the 60’s were told : shut up . make the coffee. open your legs. Little has changed. As far as I can tell real cause they care about as a group is fighting the right wing dicks…non dick people do not matter in this dick world slap down …and if non dick beings don’t want to helpmate in this righteous dick cause , but be a person too in putting forward the supposed other causes , they are thrust into the C word category and doubly dismissed .

    I wish I saw half the defence of the supposed causes from the left male blogaphere as I do for Obama’s and thier right to be dicks

  3. O/T (kind of) … I just read this interesting comment at Calculated Risk, “I think one phenomenon that the internet has caused is that a lot of people have the same thoughts in a short period of time.
    After hearing a couple of comments about it earlier this week on the Interwebs this morning I hear a long segment on the local talk radio station about how no president has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2% and about how it would be very difficult for republicans to beat Hillary Clinton — the most popular politician in the entire universe.
    The conclusion of the host was that senior democrats needed to have “the talk” with Barack Obama. ”

    … all I can say is, I wish.

    • You never know where that final straw will come from. I hesitate to say that Suskind’s book is going to do it but there is a lot of dissatisfaction with Obama in it that goes beyond women working in the White House.
      I don’t know how he’s going to pull off a re-election next year. It’s not so much that voters love Republicans, because we know that’s not true. But Democrats in Exile like me will never vote for him. I didn’t like him the first time because I have seen his type of schmoozer before. I sure as hell don’t want to go through 4 more years of this where his chances of getting anything done may be even more remote.
      The party does have a choice, unless they *like* the idea of putting Obama out there as the best candidate they can offer. If he’s the best they can do and represents all that the party stands for, they shouldn’t count on my vote.

    • I’ve been giving this a great deal of thought as I “knit one, purl one”. When it was time for Nixon to resign, the Republicans sent Barry Goldwater to tell him. Which “senior statesman” in today’s Democratic Party would be a logical choice to tell Obama it’s time to call the Mayflower guys? Couldn’t be Bill Clinton for obvious reasons. Jimmy Carter appears to be pleased with Obama’s presidency. John Kerry wants to be Secretary of State when Hillary steps down so he’s not going to do it. Nancy Pelosi? Given how little respect Obama has for women, can’t see that he’d listen to her. Johnson appeared to have made the decision himself, but I think Obama is going to need a nudge. Problem is, who’s going to do the nudging?

      • It can’t be the Big Dawg. It has to be someone who was prominent enough and went out of his/her way to push Obama on us.
        IMHO, Pelosi should do it.

      • What about Reid? Wasn’t this whole deal his idea in the first place?

        • Mebbe, but Pelosi represents the House whose representatives are more indicative of the Democratic party. She lost the most in 2010 and for all we know, could lose even more due to redistricting. What the Congress needs going into the 2012 elections is momentum and she is not going to get that with Obama.
          So, I’d say Pelosi has to do it.

          • Fitting in that Pelosi was the one who “masterminded” the voting herd at the Convention, keeping the Hill contingent off-balance and uninformed, and unable to vote, if at all possible. She was scared that Hill might pull it off in spite of all the hard work she had done to make sure her “gift from God” was the nominee, hook or crook.

            She deserved to be slammed out of power, and I doubt that she has the integrity to admit her mistake.

            Unless Obama has a burning desire (that doesn’t seem like Obama’s style) to perfect his golf game, I think he still has dreams of vacations on the taxpayer’s dime ahead of him. Producing has never been part of the equation. His luck might run out someday. He needs to have a real opponent once in his political career (the only one so far was Bobby Rush who trounced him), but I doubt what passes as the Repubs these days will come up with any non-loney.

            Who is the Green Party candidate?

          • CB says Minority leader Peolsi deserved to be thrown out of power. I agree. So after she lost of majority, why wasn’t someone else named Minority leader for the Democrats? The answer to that question could be very important.


      • The only one Obama would listen to would be one of his billionaire backers. Soros maybe.
        But I don’t think any of them give a fig about the Dem party. The GOP party suits them just as well.

      • “Jimmy Carter appears to be pleased with Obama’s presidency.”

        Of course! He is the first President to make Jimmy Carter’s presidency look good.


  4. I took the part about Obama to mean that nobody wanted to embarrass the first black president with a charge of gender discrimination.

    • Believe it or not, I never once thought about Obama’s race in that whole rant. I know you’re not referring to me but I fail to see how race enters into this issue. The Y chromosome dwarfs a teensy genetic mutation for melanocyte production.

      • I didn’t see a racial connotation either. My take on the eight-word “if it weren’t for the president” remark was that if your sexist boss were anyone other than the President of the United States, you might have an actionable claim. But when the sexism/discrimination is coming the President himself, then where ya gonna go?

        It’s hard to say exactly what Anita Dunn meant with that phrase, but it isn’t necessarily a compliment to Obama.

        • Yep. Also, he *finally* got around to doing something about it and if he had hesitated even one more second, they would have lost their patience and done something embarrassing to the White House.

    • Me too. I took it to mean that if it hadn’t been the office of the presidency, a lawsuit would surely have come.

      • That’s how I read it too.

        And – as if further proof was needed to document Obama’s general view of the female gender – how about him only a few days ago once again, in front of a crowd, presenting his wife emphasizing … her cuteness. 🙄

      • Yes – I think she meant the only reason the administration wasn’t in court for gender discrimination was because it was the presidential administration.

        Klein read it the way he wanted to see it – that the President had somehow ameliorated all the transgressions with his saintly intervention.

    • I took it to mean something similar, along the lines of “we can’t embarrass the White House” or “it’s our duty to protect the president”.

    • She was talking to Ms. Jarrett, whose power depends on being a yes woman to the President. She had to exempt the President from the charge. But if discrimination is taking place by people reporting to you and you are doing nothing to stop it, you are the problem.


      • Jarrett is a disgrace to women everywhere. If her solution to the problem is baby showers, then she herself is sexist.

        And I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what her Women’s and Girl’s Committee has accomplished. I haven’t heard one solitary word about that effort.

  5. I sometimes feel this “Hillary would have be better ” dumbeat from mainstream is to drive her out of State. I mean how long will Obama be able to stand this. Of course Hillary would have been better…but that’s not the point it seems to me. They knew that long ago…that’s why she was stopped. One can say Obama stinks without always bringing Hill in …but they do. Why?

    • Because there is no one else “on the bench”. If Obama does not run in 2012, she is the only one with a real base to support her run. Obama has sucked all of the life out of the Democratic Party. The next tier of possible candidates for president from the Democrats is at least one, maybe even two elections away. Obama has not been kind to the “farm teams”.

      • ah! Thank you! I sometimes think the party was lifeless already…and that’s why he could happen as he did …kind of like the chicken and the egg…which came first? Obama or dead party walking? Certainly wrecking the party from within is part of his job….. But the up shot is indeed there’s only a Hill Dem alternative at the moment .

    • Because she is still powerful and they know that the country was thwarted. In 2008, voters voted for the Democrat but the true blue Democrat was sidelined. I suspect that they still want a Democrat.
      The Hillary detractors are so irrational. I listened to Susie Madrak and Ted Rall last night and they don’t like Obama but they can’t get over Hillary Clinton’s Iraq War Vote. The irrational thing is that they seemed to have no problem getting over John Edwards’ Iraq War vote, even though they know by now that Edwards was a scoundrel and a phony. She is always held to a much higher standard on that vote. It’s almost as if Hillary alone was responsible for the entire Iraq War. If she hadn’t voted for it, the other 98 Senators’ votes for it would have been null and void.
      I can’t help but feel there is something else at the bottom of this IWR vote excuse that the Hillary detractors will not or can not admit to themselves. I don’t know what it is. I wasn’t crazy about her vote either but I understand the decision she made had nothing to do with the desire to go to war and was a thoroughly thought out decision. It wasn’t going to go well for her either way. And yet, they just can’t forgive her for it and move on like they forgave that shithead John Edwards.
      If you were willing to vote for Edwards in the general had he been nominated but were not willing to do the same for Hillary, even though they both voted for the IWR, then, I’m sorry, but I can’t take you seriously. Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense.
      You can’t take a vote back. In 2008, the election was all about the economy and the left lost sight of that and got caught up in mob logic. After reading the excerpts of this book, I think we can put to rest the idea that Hillary wouldn’t have been better. ANYBODY would have been better than Obama at being president during the worst of the economic crisis. It was just as we said it would be. He wasn’t ready and he didn’t have a plan. He let ambition and praise for his so-called “brilliance” go to his head. The office was just another rung on his ladder to success and once he got there, he had absolutely no idea what to do next and no one he could count on to give him good advice. And why was that? It’s because he hadn’t been in politics long enough to know what was really going on. Add sexism into the mix and voile! Unemployment for as far as the eye can see and a decade or more of lackluster economic performance.

      • I think we can put to rest the idea that Hillary wouldn’t have been better .ANYBODY would have been better than Obama at being president during the worst of the economic crisis

        lol Indeed. I think that’s why the” Hillary would be no better ” chant has petered out . It’s not about her as much…since, as you say anyone would have been better! lol! ,

      • Also, Hillary was the Senator from New York where Ground Zero sat. Had she not voted to investigate the possibility of retaliation to those responsible, image a public hanging. I think the real issue is the pervasive discrimination against women across all racial and ethnic lines. Imagine if someone one with Obama’s CV had been a woman of any sort (and in his case, having an African exchange student, as opposed to say a Brazilian exchange student father, was an historical advantage).

        • Yeah, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and I’m sure she knew that. There wasn’t even a reason to pretend that’s what the IWR was for.
          I think she should just stick to her original reason for passing it: The president asked for it and it would have been difficult to justify withholding the authorization to look into whether Hussein had WMD’s. She was probably hoping he wouldn’t use it to go to war but knew he would anyway. There was no winning that one.

          • The Congress should have rebelled en masse against IWR, but the zeitgeist was to go after Iraq–no hard targets in Afghanistan, and wasn’t there only authorization to investigate, or did the Congress know this was a done-deal fake war about to occur?

    • Hillary announced publicly (Travis Smiley show) that she was in it for one-term only. She is still saying that privately.
      No need to drive her out of State, she is driving herself.

      Picking up in 2016 would be even more of a disaster than she would have had to deal with in 2012.

      • Agree. 2016 is too late. It’s almost too late in 2012. In 2016, it will be a totally different country than the one we grew up in and there won’t be much she or any Democrat will be able to do about it without some kind of Sans Coloutte type movement. If the Republicans get thrown out in 2016, it won’t be Democrats doing the throwing.

  6. test turning off the italics

  7. I always interpreted “I said if it weren’t for the president….” to imply the usual syndrome that nobody will criticize or attack Obama (that is, I read it “if Obama weren’t the President”). Who wants to be smeared as a racist? I don’t read it that Obama was doing anything personally, because obviously he wasn’t. I mean, baby showers? Come on.

    * * *

    On Elizabeth Warren, yes, she’s evidently sane, which is a relief. On the other hand, if 2008 taught us anything, it’s that rhetoric is the bait before the switch. So let her burn a few bridges with the powers that be. Like calling for bankster CEOs to go to jail for accounting control fraud. Or, relevant to this thread, calling out the White House for sexism, which she surely experienced.

    • Let’s take the eight words to mean what has been suggested, that without Obama’s intervention, the white house would have been a hostile work environment. Does it matter if they had to wait almost a year to be taken seriously? BTW, I don’t think Obama came up with the baby shower idea. I think it was the result of jarrett and other women trying to think of something that would make them feel connected to their colleagues if that only meant other women.
      In any case, we already know that the white house guys continued to act like sexist jerks right up to August 2011 when they failed to invite Nancy Pelosi to the discussions on the debt ceilings and had to be shamed into it. That was beyond reprehensible. I don’t care if she’s the worst long haired hippy type pinko fag the House has, she’s still the minority leader and deserves respect and needs to be included. So, as far as I can see, the problem still exists. If I were a woman looking for a job in the obama administration, is try to find one in State or foreign policy. The women in those departments seem to take no prisoners.

      • Yes, I’d say leaving out Pelosi substantiates the claims and demonstrates the sexist crap continues today.

        In today’s world, anything (and I MEAN anything!) can be interpreted as r*cist but nothing is sexist, we just imagine that stuff.

  8. Hillary has proven she has “a set of three titanium testicles”

    Thanks for sharing your impressions of the book, RD. The issue is Obama as top dog and supposed expert on discrimination law KNOWS that ultimately the one at the top is responsible for that hostile workplace environment, especially when they allow the underlings to continue their behavior. The pinkifying really was a strange response to a big problem. All this usually does is to reinforce the hostility since the men still gravitate to where they most feel comfortable with, despite the numbers of the other group. The women learned that their complaints would not be taken seriously, and instead were belittled with this suburban-like separation of the genders. It is obvious to me that because Obama did not address the problem, issuing policies directly concerning the behavior of the hostile ones, he allowed the hostile environment to continue. He was and is responsible for it.

    I took the liberty to share your this on the Draft Hillary facebook page.

    • Be my guest. But I would really like it if people started to propagate the idea that the allegations are measurable and we don’t just have to take their word for it. The data is there for interested parties to mine.

  9. About the “Throwing […]balls around in the office” (heh!) and the importance of displaying sports in the Oval Office, I find this quote from the documentary “The President’s Photographer” quite revealing. Obama, talking about the pictures on the wall documenting his day-to-day activities:

    The one that is my absolute favorite, though, is the one that Pete [Souza] took of me blocking [former college basketball star] Reggie Love’s shot playing basketball. Which we left up there, I think, a little longer than usual … Usually there’s a rotation, but through a presidential directive, I think that stayed up two or three months.

    Because, you know, it makes him almost as talented as Reggie Love, lol.

    • This is sad. Obama’s absolute favorite moment as POTUS was when he blocked Reggie Love? He couldn’t find any other substantial action as POTUS to honor? How depressing.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: