Barack Obama; Not So Equal Pay For Women
Sep 14, 2008 Political
The feminists out there in America foam at the mouth when the discussion turns to equal pay for equal work. They are upset that men make more for the same jobs and they assure us that Barack Obama is the man to solve this riddle. Interestingly, these are the same feminists who have allowed sexist attacks against Sarah Palin and, in fact, have joined in on them. Yes, feminism is only good if the feminist is a liberal.
Obama’s website discusses the disparity in pay between the sexes and, of course, Obama will fix this. He even told the world during his coronation speech:
“I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.”
It seems that Obama wants his daughters to have the same opportunities as your sons but he does not want anyone else’s daughters to have that equality. At least this is the case with the women who work on his Senate Staff. Based on their salaries, Obama pays the sons working for him more than the daughters:
Based on these calculations, Obama’s 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama’s average male employee earned $54,397.
Obama’s 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.
Why this disparity? One reason may be the underrepresentation of women among Obama’s highest-compensated employees. Of Obama’s five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.
On average, Obama’s female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama’s campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama’s rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue. NRO
Now this is bad enough but while Obama and his feminist surrogates were discussing McCain as a Neanderthal who would relegate women to second class status, back alley abortions and lower pay, a funny thing happened. The same audit showed that McCain pays the women in his office more than the men. He pays them $1.04 for each dollar a man makes.
So tell me again which of these candidates is all talk and which one lives what he says…
Here is a clue for the liberals who are worried about equal pay. Join the military. It is a great job, you learn great skills and everyone of the same grade and time in service gets the exact same amount of pay regardless of what sex they happen to be.
Or go to work for John McCain.
The Sexist Attacks On Palin Continue
Sep 10, 2008 Political
The Democrats are ratcheting up their attacks on Sarah Palin demonstrating just how formidable an opponent she really is. If they were not concerned with her or if they really believed America will not vote for McCain simply because of her, then why do they attack her so relentlessly? The Obama campaign was full of sexists when Hillary was running against him and the Democrats, the so called party of the people, women’s rights and all that, have continued that tact with Palin. It is amazing to see the number of women in the Democratic party who think Palin should stay home and raise her kids or that she has no business being in politics. This is from Politico [Jonathan Martin’s Blog]:
South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”
Is this really the message that women in the Democratic party want to send? Do they expect men to take them seriously when they abandon their so called beliefs in order to destroy a female opponent from the opposite party? Imagine if some Conservative in a business looked at a liberal woman applying for a job and said, “Have you ever had an abortion? If not then you will be qualified for this job.” To me this is no different than telling a woman she is unqualified if she is pregnant or has kids and must take off to attend to them. The women’s movement was supposed to be about equal rights and the idea that women were qualified to do the same jobs as men. It seems that is nothing more than talk because the women who say they are all for it actually do not have the strength to put their money where their mouth is.
I wonder what Carol Fowler would say if the South Carolina Republican Chairman said that the Democrats had chosen a presidential candidate whose primary qualification seems to be that he was not born white…
I also wonder if she realizes that she is saying you have to murder a child to be qualified to be on the ticket.
They are very afraid.
UPDATE: I just read that she is married to Don Fowler, the one who was laughing about hurricane Gustav hitting New Orleans…
Like Most Victims of Abuse, Hillary will Submit
Jun 7, 2008 Opinion, Political
Women who suffer abuse at the hands of the men in their lives usually end up blaming the men’s behavior on a plethora of other things and ultimately themselves. They then turn back to the men and in an effort to reconcile only to be abused again and again. Hillary Clinton has been through this before with her husband. His sexcapades were abusive to their relationship (and threatened her political aspirations) and she stuck by his side. She blamed the problems they were having on everything from Republican dirty tricks to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Hillary Clinton stuck by Bill when many women were saying she should dump him. They failed to understand the psychological aspect of abuse.
And so we now have the end, or at least it looks like the end, of the Democratic primary season with Barack Hussein Obama snatching victory from Hillary. I am no Hillary supporter (I don’t support either of them) but I agree with her and many others that the campaign was sexist and that sexism was tolerated and even participated in by the media. Obama had a condescending attitude toward Hillary (your likable enough) and the media scrutinized aspects of Clinton that no male candidate endured. What Hillary wore, her cleavage, her make up and how she acted were common themes. The only mention of Obama’s clothing was the clamor of fawning reporters who were sexually aroused by Mr. Obama’s tight jeans. Those clothes were used to portray him as some kind of sex symbol with whom the lady reporters were enthralled.
After all the sexism that took place in this campaign Hillary Clinton was reduced to a victim who turned back to her abuser. Today she suspended her campaign and threw her support behind Obama and she called for all her supporters, many of whom are women, to get behind Obama as well. She asked them to turn a blind eye to the sexism many of them remain furious about. Hillary, instead of shunning her abuser, went to him.m And though I am sure she made few excuses for what happened she still ignored the open attacks on her sex and backed the man responsible. Her actions are no different than what she did with her husband after his abuse. The idea that she would be selected as VP is nothing more than continued sexism. She is not good enough to be on top of the ticket even after winning the most votes but she can play second fiddle to a man. It is like they are telling her that if she does not make a stink about the way she was treated and helps her abuser they will give her a reward (honey, here is a necklace. I am sorry I beat you up last night, you know I really love you).
Hillary could break the cycle of abuse and strike out on her own. She could either decide that she is not going to support Obama and go back to her duties or she could fight back by running as an Independent. Hillary Clinton received more of the popular vote than Obama did and she could hold her own in a general election. She could break the cycle of sexism and be beholden to no one in the Democratic party. She could demonstrate to the Democrats that she and her supporters did not appreciate the sexist attitudes and the way that she was treated and she could tell them she refuses to continue being a victim of the cycle of abuse that is common in those types of relationships.
It will take strength to do this but no one accuses Clinton of lacking strength. She could break from the party and turn Independent and announce her intention of running for the presidency. She could do this just after the convention where they anoint Obama and take advantage of the emotional state of the women who supported her. She would have to change party affiliation which would be another dig at the Democrats who would lose strength in the Senate but it would be necessary for her to run.
Hillary has thrown her support to her abuser but it is not too late for her to break the cycle. She can make her plans and then announce after the convention. She has people who would continue to work for her and she could get public funding for the election. It takes one step at a time in order for the abused to break the cycle and get away from the abuser.
Hillary can take that step by running as an Independent.
Sources:
Herald Tribune
al-Reuters
Washington Post
Tags: abuse, Clinton, concession, independent, Obama, sexism
Ferraro Dreams; If Only Obama Were White
Mar 11, 2008 Political
Former VP candidate and Hillary backer Geraldine Ferraro has thrown down the race card with regard to Barack Obama. In this high stakes game of political poker Ferraro threw down the Ace of Spades by stating that if Obama were not black he would not be where he is.
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
I do not disagree with her because if Obama were a white man he would not be drawing 85% of the black vote. Hillary would be getting it as the wife of the first black president. Most black people are voting for him for two reasons, he is black and he is a Democrat.
I will take Ferraro’s statement further and say that if Obama were a black Republican he would not be getting the votes that he is. he would have been out of this race a long time ago having been shunned by the black community as an Uncle Tom. The Democrats have so thoroughly put a strangle hold on the black community that they will not vote Republican unless Obama gets screwed by his party and the nomination goes to Hillary. Ms. Ferraro made a valid point but she was too narrow in her focus. His being black is only part of the equation but his being a Democrat is the other part. Blacks support him for those two reasons. God knows it is not because he actually says anything of substance. Amazingly, if whites voted for someone solely because he was white they would be labeled racists.
Now I want to turn Ferraro’s words inward. Hillary Clinton would not be where she is if she were a man. She would not be where she is if it were not for the fact that she is married to a former president. Clinton was elected to the Senate by an electorate that felt sorry for her because her husband cheated on her. She had no qualifications for the job. He life has been spent as a First Lady of one sort or another and she has had NO leadership experience in the real world.
She was elected because of her last name and she was the heir apparent because of her last name and for no other reason. People figured that if she were elected it would be a back door third term for Bubba and the prospect of him back in the White House excited people (except for parents of young interns). Hillary has no major accomplishments, she has a thin resume, and she was a carpetbagger in New York.
Yes, Ms. Ferraro is correct that Obama would not be where he is if he were white but Hillary would not be where she is if it were not for her last name. If Bill Clinton had never been elected to the presidency she would never have been elected to the Senate and she would not have been seen as a viable candidate for the White House.
Source:
ABC Political Punch
Others with interesting posts:
Debbie Lee on A NEWT ONE!, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, DragonLady’s World, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, , Pursuing Holiness, Stageleft, Right Voices, Chuck’s Place, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Clinton, democrat, ferraro, Obama, racism, republican, sexism
Sexism in Campaign is Overrated
Mar 3, 2008 Political
Gloria Steinem, the aging feminazi, is on the campaign trail stumping for Hillary Clinton. While Steinem is out discussing the supposed qualifications of she who would be Queen, it boils down to one qualification and that is, Hillary is a woman. Steinem discusses the campaign and how Hillary is not given a fair chance or how the media is better to Obama or any of the other claims made by the Clinton apologists. She throws in a few of the references to male domination and all the other excuses that women use when they fail to achieve. Women have made quantum leaps with regard to equality in the workplace and in education. There are many women in institutes of higher learning and there are plenty in the workplace and they are protected under Equal Opportunity laws to such a great extent that they receive benefits of affirmative action. Women owned businesses receive special treatment so much so that contractors align with them in order to win competitive bids. This is not good enough for the feminist Steinem because, in her eyes, there must be sexism involved if Hillary is losing. Steinem goes so far as to indicate John McCain’s time as a POW was overrated and if he were a woman men would ask what she did wrong to get shot down and captured. I think we all remember this being the case with Jessica Lynch, who by the way, was rescued by a bunch of men.
Steinem, while claiming to be a feminist, is supporting a candidate who cried, who relied on a man (her husband), who debated by whining about getting questions first and who generally ran a poor campaign. Hillary Clinton had a double digit lead when this whole thing started and she was the presumptive nominee long before the contests began in earnest. The campaign process was a mere formality. Instead of sexism, isn’t it just possible that people do not think she would be a good president? Isn’t it possible that after the population had a chance to see Hillary on the campaign trail they were less enamored with her? Top this off with a candidate who has the ability to say absolutely nothing and still thrill people (especially women) and it spells disaster for any candidate regardless of that person’s sex.
The idea that Hillary is being rejected because of sexism is absolutely ludicrous but the mere suggestion shows that even staunch Democrats believe that their party is comprised of sexists. It is not the Republican Party that is giving the nod to Obama, it is the Democrats who are voting for him over the woman who has been dubbed the smartest woman in the world. The Democratic establishment has also recognized that it has racists in it because anyone who opposes Obama is tagged as a racist. Remember, this is all coming from the party of diversity and tolerance.
Hillary Clinton is being rejected because she is a polarizing person. She rubs people the wrong way and, when compared to Obama, her lack of personality is glaringly obvious. The suggestion that America rejects her because of her sex ignores the flaws of the person and lays blame on the voters who are obviously too stupid to see that she deserves to win. The fact that she is a woman does not qualify her for the job though Steinem would have us believe this. There are plenty of women in this country who would do an admirable job as President just as there are many blacks who would do an equally good job. Yes, America is ready for a black or a woman but we are not ready for this black or that woman, not because of those qualities but because of what they represent with regard to the issues.
Steinem believes that Hillary is the best candidate and that is her opinion. Just because people do not accept Hillary does not mean people are sexists any more than those who reject Obama are racists. Does this mean there is no racism or sexism? Certainly not. There are people who will not vote for either of these candidates based solely on their race or sex. I would bet though, there are more people who will vote FOR them based on these attributes than against and that is just as bad. Some however, will vote for a person based upon a perception of qualifications. In some cases it will be the lesser of two evils as it usually is in politics.
If Steinem wants a woman to win perhaps they should run one who can win. I would also wonder if Steinem would have the same feelings were the losing female candidate a Republican? BTW Gloria, I would vote for a Conservative woman or black person if I thought they would do the best job.
We have 300 million people in this country and these three are the best we can come up with? That, in and of itself, is depressing.
Related item:
Boston.com
Interesting Post:
Sonnabend
Tags: campaign, democrat, gloria steinem, Hillary, President, sexism