Join Dr. Lynette Long for her weekly call-in show, SINS OF OMISSION, where she unapologetically discusses sexism in our society. Dr. Long will use your examples to highlight both Sins of Commission (blatant sexist attacks) and Sins of Omission (the under-representation of women). In her direct no-holds-barred style, Dr. Long will offer listeners strategies to combat sexism in their lives and will solicit the help of the listening audience to eradicate sexism in our society. Get ready to roll up your sleeves and do some heavy lifting — something has got to give.

by Lynette Long

The current cabinet of the United States is attended by the President, fifteen Cabinet Members, and six cabinet level administrative offices that includes the Vice-President and the White House Chief of Staff for a total of 22 members. 

The Bush Cabinet has four women: Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, Elaine Chao as Secretary of Labor, Mary Peters as Secretary of Transportation, and Margaret Spellings as Secretary of Education. 

In addition Susan Schwab has Cabinet level rank as United States Trade Secretary.   

Out of the 22 people that attend cabinet meetings, The President, the Vice-President, the Cabinet, and the Cabinet level administrative offices, five are currently women, which is 23%. 

Will President-Elect Obama appoint more women to his cabinet than President Bush?   I am starting a cabinet watch. 

Help me.  I would like to see 50% of the female cabinet women.  I am starting a cabinet watch.  As the cabinet members become appointed I will color the titles blue or pink. 

Please lobby the Obama campaign for more women in the cabinet.  Call his office at 202-224-2854. Thanks. 

·         The President

·         Secretary of State

·         Secretary of the Treasury

·         Secretary of Defense

·         Attorney General

·         Secretary of the Interior

·         Secretary of Agriculture

·         Secretary of Commerce

·         Secretary of Labor

·         Secretary of Health and Human Services

·         Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

·         Secretary of Transportation

·         Secretary of Energy

·         Secretary of Education

·         Secretary of Veterans Affairs

·         Secretary of Homeland Security

Cabinet-level administration offices ·         Vice President of the United States
·         White House Chief of Staff
·        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
·         Director of the Office of Management and Budget
·         Director of the National Drug Control Policy
·         United States Trade Representative	·	·

]]> http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/09/parity-in-the-cabinet/feed/ http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/05/post-election-quibbles-and-bits/ http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/05/post-election-quibbles-and-bits/#comments Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:20:44 +0000 LisaB http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/05/post-election-quibbles-and-bits/ Well, the election is over and we all need to figure out next steps. However, while we indulge in mulling, there’s stuff going on. Do you know where one of the “front lines” is in international war / finance / fraud? Computers. At least Obama now knows this first hand.

1)The computer systems of both the Obama and McCain campaigns were victims of a sophisticated cyberattack by an unknown “foreign entity,” prompting a federal investigation, NEWSWEEK reports today.

At the Obama headquarters in midsummer, technology experts detected what they initially thought was a computer virus—a case of “phishing,” a form of hacking often employed to steal passwords or credit-card numbers. But by the next day, both the FBI and the Secret Service came to the campaign with an ominous warning: “You have a problem way bigger than what you understand,” an agent told Obama’s team. “You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system.” The following day, Obama campaign chief David Plouffe heard from White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, to the same effect: “You have a real problem … and you have to deal with it.”
—————
Officials at the FBI and the White House told the Obama campaign that they believed a foreign entity or organization sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps’ policy positions—information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration. The Feds assured the Obama team that it had not been hacked by its political opponents. (Obama technical experts later speculated that the hackers were Russian or Chinese.) A security firm retained by the Obama campaign took steps to secure its computer system and end the intrusion. White House and FBI officials had no comment earlier this week.

Read the rest ->

Nothing like being a victim to alert a person to the danger. I wonder if any technology-related policies will benefit from Obama’s victimization.

2)Meanwhile, in Russia, things are heating up. Foxnews has a piece about Russian President Medvedev “sending a signal” to the US.

Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday in his first state of the nation speech.

Medvedev also singled out the United States for criticism, casting Russia’s war with Georgia in August and the global financial turmoil as consequences of aggressive, selfish U.S. policies.

————————-

Speaking just hours after Obama was declared the victor in the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. He suggested it is up to the U.S. — not the Kremlin — to seek to improve relations.

“I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia,” Medvedev said.

Well, here we go. A Russian demand for a new American President to kiss some butt. Hmmmmm.

3)In the most thoughtful piece I’ve seen on the racial aspect of a President Obama, Shelby Steele talks a bit about what Obama implicitly promised and what he may not be able to deliver. From LAT.

[Obama's] talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America — and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.

Obama’s special charisma — since his famous 2004 convention speech — always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up — given an air of “change” — by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life — the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency — and presenting himself to a majority white nation — Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.
——————–

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years.
——————–
It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don’t think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites — especially today’s younger generation — proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer’s ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

On the nose. Particularly that last part. Although many people would not feel the same, I can say that this election has pretty much cured me of any need to seek “racial innocence.” While many blacks have often said they felt constrained not to make whites feel “threatened” by their presence, I think whites could respond that they often felt constrained to project “I’m not racist” at every opportunity.

However, I’m not doing it anymore. I’ll be polite to people, not wishing to give offense and just hoping to get along - same as ever. But I’m not going to worry if someone perceives me as a racist because I looked at them too long or noticed what was in their grocery cart or any of a thousand things you do when you interact others. I’m done with that.

But what about how Obama will transform our culture? What does Steele say?

There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.
——————
Presidents follow the culture; they don’t lead it. I hope for a competent president.

Yeah. I completely agree. All I ever wanted was competence.

4)The Orlando-Sentinel had an interesting and yet ridiculous piece today. Obama won because of black athletes. Seriously.

If you’re searching for tangible reasons why it became possible for Barack Obama to make his historic run at the presidency of the United States, then look no further than the golf course, basketball court or football field.

Obama may have emerged from the partisan political arena, but it was the nonpartisan athletic arena that opened white America’s eyes and minds to the amazing potential and personalities of black America.

OK, you can make a case for any barrier-breaker, no doubt about that. But to suggest that black athletes who excel in the ruthless meritocracy that is sports today somehow are the forerunners of a man elected despite a lack of experience is not a very good argument, IMO. Seeing Michael Jordan play basketball or Lynn Swan play football is to see a truly expert individual. Simply put, you don’t play if you don’t have the chops.

But to suggest a presidential campaign reflects meritocracy is absurd. It reflects many things, but not necessarily merit. These athletes will be out on their butts as soon as they can’t perform. Anyone honestly think THAT will happen to BO? Has it yet?

5)Who should get Obama’s Senate seat? An AA of course. I’m seriously doubting any white people need apply, but let’s look at the contenders. From Newser is a Time piece on who could fill that seat.

As confidence grew in recent weeks that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States, a battle intensified among various Illinois politicos to fill his Senate seat. Although a number of local leaders have publicly expressed interest in the position, the decision on who will complete the roughly two years remaining in Obama’s Senate term ultimately rests with Illinois’ governor, Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat and former congressman. . .
—————

Identity politics may play a major part in Blagojevich’s decision. Observers believe the governor may feel compelled to appease two of his core constituencies — women, and blacks, particularly from his native Chicago area — that could prove crucial to his prospects should he seek reelection in 2010. He may feel extra pressure to replace the Senate’s only black member with another African-American. One of the names most frequently mentioned here is Jesse Jackson Jr., a veteran Congressman who represents parts of Chicago’s South Side, and a national co-chair of Obama’s presidential campaign.

In an interview Monday, Jackson told TIME: “I’d be honored and humbled to succeed Sen. Obama in the U.S. Senate. I’m confident the governor will make a decision in the best interest of the state, and country.” But Blagojevich could also opt for a sort of placeholder figure to complete Obama’s term and allow Democrats to find a long-term candidate for 2010. Among the prominent black politicians the governor would turn to in that scenario, are Illinois’ secretary of state, Jesse White, or Emil Jones Jr., the recently retired president of Illinois’ senate, and one of Blagojevich’s few General Assembly allies.

The author mentions some other contenders, but I think Jackson is the most likely choice and he’s clearly indicated he wants it. And as national co-chair of Obama’s campaign, I’m betting it’s his. As for the idea that a woman might get the seat? Only if Obama tells Jesse Jr. to pipe down.

A better question is this: what might Blagojevich need more than the goodwill of the President?

6)Newser also has a story from the AP about Iraq.

Iraqi officials said Wednesday they don’t expect Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops hastily from Iraq because he told them last summer that he wouldn’t make a decision without consulting them and U.S. commanders on the ground.

With violence down and the economy No. 1 on American voters’ minds, the Iraqis said they believe the new president will take his time before fulfilling his promise to end the war in Iraq, which costs U.S. taxpayers $12 billion a month at a time of financial crisis back home.
——————

“Obama has to deal with Iraq’s issues in a positive way and have a sense of responsibility to correct the situation in Iraq, as well the situation inside America,” said Salim Abdullah, spokesman of the largest Sunni bloc in parliament.

“We are not concerned that he will take a unilateral decision to remove troops quickly from Iraq since he needs to discuss this issue with the Iraqi government first,” Abdullah said.
——————–

This year, U.S. and Iraqi negotiators hammered out an agreement that would remove U.S. soldiers from Iraq’s cities by June 30, with the last American troops leaving the country by 2012. The accord still must be approved by parliament by year’s end when the U.N. mandate expires.

The draft agreement has drawn strong opposition inside Iraq, but government officials are hopeful that parliament can approve the pact in time for the deadline.

That would largely satisfy both Obama’s pledge _ and the Iraqi goal _ of an orderly end to the U.S. mission.

Don’t forget that part. Despite an agreement in place, Obama will take credit for any forward movement in Iraq. Having said that, I don’t think Bush deserves any credit at all. But perhaps some of his people might. They won’t get any.

7) Lastly, I looked in vain for MSM or even sorta MSM discussions of this election in terms of misogyny or in terms of women’s issues. Crickets. Except for a wonderful post here on NQ by Bud White, there is very little out there. We should push BO on this issue at every opportunity and carefully monitor his administration. While everyone talked about race being the “unspoken issue” of the campaign, it got thoroughly aired. What was never spoken of was hate against women.

So far, only bloggers are addressing the issue, but here’s another one:

Grail Guardian is pointed:

There will never be a female President of the United States. There. I said it. Ladies, go home and grab your burkas and start cooking dinner for your man and popping out babies. You will never have equal pay for equal work, you will never be considered competent or capable at anything you ever do, and you stand no chance of ever getting anywhere unless it’s to a soccer or hockey game to cheer your (male) children on. Of course the laws will be wide open to allow you to abort female children so you don’t have to sully the landscape with them at all anymore.

How do I know? Because before even half the nation’s votes were tallied tonight, not only were all the major networks calling the race for Barack Obama, but the pundits are already discussing how Sarah Palin was John McCain’s downfall. Pundits attempting to defend her popularity with statistics were shot down on Fox News. That’s it – it’s over. You will not see another female Presidential candidate taken seriously in this country in our lifetimes. We’ll be lucky if we continue to see women continue to hold seats in the Senate and House after tonight. Female Governors? Forget about it. Palin won’t be re-elected there, because in spite of the fact that Alaska loved her (90% approval rating) just 4 months ago, she has been trashed and is now persona non grata in her own state courtesy of the Chosen One.

Time to saddle up. We need to demand BO own this issue since he’s knowingly benefitted from misogyny. At the very least, he should be required to choose some women for his administration. But we already know what his people said to just that request before: “you can’t have that.”

Lynette Long talked with a BO staffer and heard just that.

Think the Congressional Black Caucus might be willing to push for women? BO MIGHT listen to them.

Like many of you before this election cycle, I never watched Fox News. In my naivete, I believed they were the bad guys and MoveOn were the good guys. Boy have things changed.

I now go to Fox before any of the other MSM, and while there are several excellent reporters there, my favorite is Greta Van Susteren. Greta Wire has the real dope, the antidote to the sexism and misogyny of the others talking heads, men and women alike.

In response to Obama’s Infomercial, Greta points out that Obama is not taking questions and that there are questions that women in particular need answered:

Tomorrow night [TODAY, October 29] Senator Obama has purchased 30 minutes on television on multiple television statIons. It is disappointing that he is NOT TAKING QUESTIONS - that means he is going to miss talking about issues that might matter to YOU. Until now, I have had a question that he has not answered but he won’t do an interview with me to get the answer….but now I have another question….a new one…and I think he needs to answer this BEFORE WOMEN VOTE FOR HIM on November 4 ..and here is the question (with a few follow ups):

She asks questions that Obama has ignored through the primary and then general election.

IS IT TRUE THAT WOMEN IN YOUR SENATE OFFICE GET PAID LESS THAN THE MEN???? PLEASE ANSWER THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE TO WOMEN IN YOUR 30 minutes tomorrow night! IF THIS IS FALSE, MAKE SURE WE KNOW AS IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO YOU.

SusanUNPC addressed this in a post in September; in addition, Obama’s inequality to women has been raised here and here and here. Greta makes her case to Obama for answers before election day in terms that all women can understand:

I have read that the women get paid 83 cents to the men’s $1.00 in your Senate office…true? or false? ….I was suspicious of the unequal pay allegations and suspected the allegation was wrong and/or politically motivated. So what did I do? I had someone on my staff crunch the numbers and it is, per our calculations 84 cents on the dollar! I am still uneasy about our number crunching. We are not accountants and this is a very important issue. What is the truth? Tell us!

As an aside, we did a similar analysis of Senator McCain’s Senate office and women get 97 cents to the men’s $1.00.

Let me tell you what I was also told by my number cruncher - which might be disturbing to women (if true.) The reason for this unequal pay for women analysis is due in part because men hold the better jobs (the important high paying jobs) in your Senate Office. This also needs to be explained. Women in other Senate Offices are the chief of staff etc and hold all sorts of important higher paying jobs than entry ones. Why don’t women hold the high paying jobs in your Senate Office? Women I know don’t accept it anymore that we can’t have important jobs. Many women not only are the breadwinners in many families but also assume extra responsibilities at home…yes, multitask..so we demand equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity…not extra..and not less.

There are many reasons I refuse to vote for Obama, but the sexism coming out of the Democratic Party is the reason I have quit the party after almost 40 years of loyalty. And the liberal women who felt justified in attacking Hillary turned their rabidity onto Palin with a bloodlust previously unimaginable.

Sarah Palin appeals to women who work hard for a living, especially women who work hard while raising a family. But as we’ve seen, the Democratic Party, as evidenced by Randy Rhodes’ comments about older white Hillary supporters, Donna Brazile’s comments about the Democratic Party not needing the white-working class, Obama calling blue-collar Pennsylvania Democrats “bitter,” and Rep. Murtha calling huge swaths of Pennsylvanians “racists,” it’s clear that the new Democratic Party, with Obama as their leader, HATES THE WHITE WORKING CLASS! Obama will not deign to answer Greta’s question because if you have to quibble over the difference between .83 and .97, you are of no interest to him. To quote Victor David Hanson again, as Reverend Amy did in her fine post:

Feminism, it turns out, is no longer about equal opportunity and equal compensation, but, in fact, little more than a strain of contemporary elitist identity politics, and support for unquestioned abortion. Had Gov. Sarah Palin just been a mother of a single child at Vassar rather than of five in Alaska, married to a novelist rather than a snow-machiner, an advocate of pro-choice, who shot pictures of Alaskan ferns rather than shot moose — feminists would have hailed her as a principled kindred soul, and trumpeted her struggles against Alaskan male grandees.

This is not the Democratic Party I used to know.

All I can say is if I EVER need a spokesperson, it will be SHE!!
Lady Lynn makes clear that Obama is a total fraud when it comes to walking the walk of the talking the talk he does regarding women and our rights. She is amazing…And Palin’s speech on this topic was pretty awesome, too, as Ani demonstrated in her excellent post at No Quarter, “Palin’s Message to Women Bears Repeating.”

And in Breaking News regarding fraud of a different kind in Ohio, we have this:

How sad is it that prosecutors did not pursue this case further because the defendants have deep pockets? How in the WORLD could the prosecutor say it was an “innocent mistake”?? We are talking about Rhodes and Marshall scholars here, for crying out loud! Check out one of them here:

Wow. This is the youth of today - evidently, “intelligence” is no substitution for ethics, that’s obvious. And, money trumps justice, apparently. I guess we should be thankful that this case won’t necessarily affect other cases that might arise (meaning, if you don’t have deep pockets, you might actually get prosecuted). What a great system, right?? Ahem. I don’t think even Lady Lynn could make this sound good. Let’s hope that other cases of fraud, both involving voters (you know, Obama and people trying to cheat him in), are dealt with in a more forceful manner on November 4th.

Discuss this, or whatever else is on your mind!

Some prominent feminists — including two members of the Democratic National Platform Committee — also stand up for all women (not just women whose politics they prefer):

[A] small group of high-profile feminists has lined up behind the Republican ticket. They stood on stage today at Governor Palin’s side — Linda Klinge, the former Oregon president and now current vice president of the organization NOW, Shelley Mandell, president of the LA chapter of NOW, Elaine Lafferty, former editor-in-chief of “Ms.” magazine, and Lynn Rothschild, a member of the Democratic platform committee. — From the transcript of “Behind the Feminist ‘Left’ Jabs to Palin, On The Record With Greta, October 21, 2008.” [Below the fold, you'll see a more detailed description of these women.]

All of you, especially our longtime fervent supporters of Hillary Clinton, will love the quotes below from Sarah’s spirited speech yesterday:

The ABC News blog Political Radar wrote an excellent, detailed report on Sarah Palin’s speech yesterday. “Palin Reaches Out to Women Voters, Slams Obama for Passing Over Clinton” includes a number of direct quotes from Sarah’s speech, as well as backgrounder facts and details relevant to Sarah’s remarks.

First, here’s the ABC blog’s more detailed description of the prominent feminists who stood up with Sarah on stage yesterday, which I’ve broken up into bullet points for easier reading:

Palin was joined on stage by five women who endorsed her candidacy, including two members of the Democratic National Platform Committee, two leaders of chapters of the National Organization of Women, and a former editor of Ms. Magazine.

• Lynn Rothschild, a Democratic National Platform Committee member and prominent supporter of Sen. Clinton, had endorsed the McCain-Palin ticket in September, but had not appeared publicly with Palin.
• Prameela Bartholomeusz also served on the Democratic Platform Committee …
• Linda Klinge, the current vice president of the Oregon Chapter of the  National Organization for Women.
• Shelly Mandell, president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, also appeared in Henderson, and had previously endorsed Palin at a public rally in Carson, CA earlier this month.

The campaign has often had former Hillary Clinton supporters introduce Palin at campaign events since her nomination [including Dr. Lynette Long, whose writings you've read at No Quarter], in an attempt to win over disaffected Clinton supporters. After introducing the women, Palin sought to dispute the idea that the Democratic ticket would easily win the female vote.

"Our opponents think that they have the women’s vote all locked up which is a little presumptuous since only our side has a woman on the ticket," Palin said to strong applause.

Here’s the lead section of Political Radar’s story:

>ABC News’ Imtiyaz Delawala Reports: A day after Sen. Barack Obama campaigned with former Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Clinton in Florida, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin slammed him for not seriously considering Clinton to be his second-in-command, citing Obama’s decision as an example of the barriers women face in the workplace.

"When it came time for choosing, somehow Barack Obama just couldn’t bring himself to pick the woman who got 18 million votes in his primary, and that seems to be too familiar a story isn’t it?" Palin said at a rally in Henderson, NV yesterday. "How it is for so many American women that the qualifications are there, but for some reason the promotion never comes?

In stronger language than Palin has used on the campaign trail before, the comments were part of a broader attempt to sell herself as an advocate for women and working numbers at a time when Palin’s support among women has slipped dramatically in national polls since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee.

"You’ve got to ask yourself why was Senator Hillary Clinton not even vetted by the Obama campaign?" Palin continued. "Why did it take 24 years, an entire generation from the time Geraldine Ferraro made her pioneering bid until the next time that a woman was asked to join a national ticket?"

"In the long history of our country, 74 people have held the position of President or Vice-President, and why have the major parties given America only two chances to even consider a woman for either office?" Palin asked. "This glass ceiling, it is still there, but it’s about time that we shattered that glass ceiling once and for all."

[...]

Building on her theme of equal rights for women, ABC News reports, Sarah Palin next “sought to tie her critique of Obama’s tax plans with her support for working women.”

As all of you regular readers here know, Barack Obama pays female staffers far less than do John McCain and Hillary Clinton, but ABC News excuses that because Obama has more male staffers.

Palin sought to tie her critique of Obama’s tax plans with her support for working women, while charging that Obama does not pay women in his Senate office at the same level as men, raising the issue as one of "fundamental fairness" that she would address as an advocate for working women.

"Out on the stump he talks a good game about equal pay for equal work, but according to the Senate pay roll records women on his own staff get just 83 cents for every dollar that the men get," Palin said of Obama. "That’s 9,000 dollars less every year that he pays the guys. Does he think that the women aren’t working as hard? Does he think that they are 17 percent less productive?"

The Palin campaign cited press reports from last month and Senate records to back its claims on Obama’s pay to Senate staffers. The discrepancy, however, appears be that more top level staffers in Obama’s Senate office are men, and therefore have higher pay. The Obama campaign points to the many senior-level female staffers currently employed on the presidential campaign trial. …

Excuses, excuses.

While we’re talking about women, can anyone tell me where in the hell Michelle Obama is? Is she too assertive, too blunt, too acrimonious and divisive to be seen? Must she be kept hidden to protect her husband’s campaign?

Has Obama’s campaign “tested” the effect of Michelle Obama’s visibility versus her invisibility? Does Obama lose a point or two in the polls when she’s seen and heard?

I’m just curious. But it’s good that the Republican candidates proudly let their female candidates and partners speak.

It is notable, though, that neither Cindy McCain or Sarah Palin has ever felt compelled to mention that their husbands are “stinky” in the morning or can’t remember to put the butter away.

And I’ve never heard the husband of either woman mention, frequently, that his wife reminds him constantly how imperfect he is — like Barack Obama does. (In his speeches, Obama uses the example of Michelle’s criticisms to convey to rally crowds that he is an imperfect man, but the frequency with which he makes the reference sets off alarms for me.)

In contrast, Sarah Palin always speaks positively about her husband. In yesterday’s speech, she praised her husband’s help in allowing her the time to attain her political goals and the importance of KEY legislation that has helped women:

Palin praised her husband Todd for his support while she has pursued her political career, while saying said that federal laws need to better support working mothers — especially those in households without a father.

"I’ve been very, very blessed to have a husband who’s supported me along the way. He’s a great dad who doesn’t disappear at bath time or run from diaper duty, and I appreciate that," Palin added. "But a lot of women have it much, much harder than I’ve had it. And they need child care, which today can cost some families a third of their household budget. And they need reforms in labor laws that allow greater flexibility in the workplace, including more tele-commuting. And they need a tax code that doesn’t penalize working families."

As she has done before on the campaign trail, Palin cited the positive impact that Title IX had on her career.

"Women of my generation were allowed finally to make more of our own choices with education, with career, and I have never forgotten that we owe that opportunity to women, to feminists who came before us," Palin said. "The belief in equal opportunity is not just the cause of feminists, it’s the creed of our country — equal opportunity."

Palin said that if elected, she would seek to spread that opportunity to other women around the world, especially for those in countries facing persecution where women are "murdered in honor killings, places where women are sold like commodities in the nightmare world of the sex trade, and places where baby girls are unwelcome as a matter of state policy and their mothers are forced to have abortions."

“Now no one person, no one leader, can bring an end to all of those ills, to all of the injustices inflicting upon women,” Palin said. “But I can promise you this, if I am elected, these women, too, will have an advocate and a defender in the 47th vice president of the United States.”

We bash the MSM all the time here. While this ABC News report isn’t perfect, it is rich in detail and direct quotes, and it gave all of us who didn’t see Palin’s speech a great picture of her messages in her speech yesterday, as well as the stories of the prominent women who stood with Sarah Palin.

And I think it is notable that Sarah Palin is GROWING as a candidate. Her delivery and the construction of the thoughts behind her remarks are excellent. There’s no doubt, in my mind, that as vice president, she will grow and learn and work very, very hard to represent this nation proudly.

I’m trained in philology–the study of words–and I began to wonder about Obama’s supporters’ favorite word for Sarah Palin, the one we’ve seen on the tee-shirts of men and women: Cunt. Going to my trusty OED, I found a bit of history, which is repeated on the online etymology dictionary. I will paste here, for your interest:

cunt

Sarah Palin has become my new hero. While I don’t agree with some of her political positions, I love that she is unapologetically herself. And she is a REAL feminist, representing many of us who don’t toe the line of some definition of what that is. The so-called “progressives,” men and women alike, don’t approve of anyone diverging from their definitions. Like me, Palin could care less what they think. From her interview with Curic:

I’m a feminist who believes in equal rights and I believe that women certainly today have every opportunity that a man has to succeed and to try to do it all anyways…[A feminist is] someone who would not stand for oppression against women.

I like that definition. I like it because I am a lifetime radical feminist who believes that real feminism is not about receiving the approval from a misogynist like Andrew Sullivan, but rather about women living full and free and authentic lives. I may disagree with Palin on some matters of policy, but I agree with her that feminism is about the existential choices women make for themselves. It’s all about freedom: women can stay home or work, get married or have a partner, take their husband’s name or keep their own, have children or not, run for office or run corporations, be a Democrat or a Republican. Feminism is freedom and it dovetails perfectly with American freedom.

I love listening to Palin calling out the Poster Boy of Male Privilege, Obama, for his lies and omissions, and she does it with relish. WaPo quotes Palin:

Okay, so, Florida, you know that you’re going to have to hang on to your hats, because from now until Election Day, it may get kind of rough.

And while the Democrats and the main stream media attack her for everything from her mothering to her idiomatic, “Joe six pack” speech, The Barracuda flexes her muscles and says:

“For me, the heels are on, the gloves are off”

Sharpening her attacks against Obama’s lack of support for our troops, she has the audacity to speak the truth:

Obama doesn’t like American soldiers. He said that our troops in Afghanistan are just, quote, ‘air-raiding villages and killing civilians’

Palin continues to hammer home Obama’s close association with unrepentant domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers:

Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers’s living room, and they’ve worked together on various projects in Chicago. These are the same guys who think that patriotism is paying higher taxes — remember that’s what Joe Biden had said. “And I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America, as the greatest force for good in the world. I’m afraid this is someone who sees America as ‘imperfect enough’ to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country.

You can see this speech in a post by SusanUnPc, which also includes Paul Villareal’s videos.

I love Sarah because she’s one of us. As Truthteller documented, like us, she’s been accused of racism for daring to criticize Dear Leader. She’s been accused of being a hick, a barbie, a pig with lipstick, and in Ani’s post about the misogyny that has welcomed her onto the national stage, Palin has even been called “disabled.” The insults range from the horrendous to the ridiculous, as in NewHampster’s post about the extreme closeup designed to expose Palin’s wrinkles. The list goes on and on.

In a brilliant post, feminist writer Dr. Violet Socks suggests that the attacks on Palin from women are sycophantic acts to gain favor with the “liberal,” male power structure:

Whenever women in a patriarchal society buck male opinion, there’s hell to pay and they know it. Women in America really went out on a limb this year by backing Hillary in the face of withering derision from men (and from young women attempting to curry favor with men, consciously or not). Now they’re making amends by piling on Palin.

Ridiculing Sarah Palin as a moron — which she clearly is not — is de rigueur for everybody now in the Obama camp. It’s their preferred sport. It’s true that Palin is verbally awkward in interviews, but then, Obama himself is a man whose unscripted remarks are so confused they defy belief. A teleprompter-deprived Obama thinks there are 57 states in the Union, believes Oregon is in the Great Lakes region, doesn’t know which states border his own state of Illinois, and has no idea which Senate committees he’s on.

But still: people always make fun of their political opponents, and they’re rarely fair about it. What interests me about the Palin attacks is their vigor. To a large extent, it’s a continuation of the misogyny that is such an integral part of the Obama movement: from the campaign itself, from the media collaborators, from the male supporters, from the self-loathing young female supporters.

Typical of liberal sexism, PBS’s program NOW has a poll asking if Palin is qualified to serve as vice president, although Palin has more executive experience than any of the three male candidates, their names are conspicuously absent. Why the question is not asked of Obama, a man who was in the senate for 143 days prior to running for president (and before that a part-time state senator) just shows the incredible bias against women who seek power. Vote in the poll here.

The sexists attacks on Palin are the same sexists attacks on Hillary, and from the same sordid cast of characters: Obama, Sullivan, MoDo, Josh Marshall, Chris Matthews, et al. An Obama victory will codify sexism in the media and Democratic Party for a generation. That’s why I can disagree with Palin and oppose Obama.

When asked in an interview what attacks on her REALLY get to her–which ones wake her up at night–Palin just laughed and said something like, none, that it comes with the territory. But then she paused and looking deadly serious for an instant and said that the attacks against her children got to her and brought out her “mama bear.”

Pit Bulls can do serious damage, but if you get between a mama bear and her cubs, you’re lunch.

(You can watch the two-part interview at the Patriot Room linked here.)

In an interview posted on the political Web site Politico, Chairwoman Carol Fowler said Republican John McCain picked a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Fowler later apologized, saying she made the statement during an interview about single-issue voters.

Don’t apologize, “Sweetie”!!111!!!! You helped shave a few more points off of Barky’s White Woman polls. Do more! Please!

“I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make everyday, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive,” Fowler said in a statement.

“I clumsily was making a point about people in South Carolina who may vote based on a single issue. Whether it’s the environment, the economy, the war or a woman’s right to choose, there are people who will cast their vote based on a single issue,” she continued. “That was the only point I was attempting to make.”

You see, that’s the problem. It’s not about you or Donna or Howard or Nancy “being clumsy”. It’s about the confusion we women are causing you. We are confusing you and the rest of The Party, right? Why are so many of us Democratic women confusing our Beloved Democratic Party???? The answer lies in a little story:

A farmer was talking to his neighbor about how expensive it is to feed his horse. His neighbor suggested that he mix sawdust in the horse’s feed for filler.

The neighbor didn’t see the farmer till a month later and he asked how his suggestion worked out. The farmer was very sullen. He said, ” I don’t understand it. I mixed some sawdust in my horse’s feed and he seemed to like it. So I added a little more the next day. And a little more the next day. He seemed to like it so I just increased his sawdust every day. But you won’t believe what happened! Soon as I got that damned horse eating all sawdust, the damned thing died!”

It’s kind of like that Carol. (and Donna, Howard, Nancy-The-Exception)

You entrenched party people have been feeding us that Abortion story for decades. Every four years we had to listen to the same shit from you. We are YOUR party, ladies. We care! If you don’t vote for us they will overturn Roe v Wade. We will protect you!

Funny, really. For one thing, if you CARED, you would have legislated this problem years ago. But then, where’s the profit in that? What would you use to keep us scared enough to vote for all of you again, and again and again. In the meantime, so many of us have grown up listening to your tripe –and you know what? We don’t give a shit!. You’ve been feeding us sawdust! We all know Roe v Wade isn’t going anywhere, so cut the craaaaaaaaap.

There was more sawdust you kept feeding us too. That “Equal pay for women” sawdust. Do you DNC jerks have any idea how long we have been listening to that horseshit? I mean if you can’t fix this problem in decades, don’t you think you all need to move on? We aren’t eating that sawdust any longer either.

How about the Champion for The Poor sawdust? In my not so short life, I haven’t seen you guys help the poor at all, unless you count keeping them poor! You know…wink …wink…just give them enough to keep them voting for you, but God forbid you should give them the incentive to actually get out of poverty and off the government’s programs. That’s not a good idea, right? I mean if you keep them all just poor enough, they will need you for-evah!

The best sawdust story is the one about Equal Rights for Women. Boy you had us eating that slop for so long I can’t even remember when it all started. But the first chance you got to be a bunch of sexist slobs, you grabbed that ring as fast as you could.

Let me be frank. I have NEVER seen so much sexism and misogyny in a primary, or pretty much anywhere for that matter, in my entire life. And I hung out in Corporate America a lot! If you pigs were in Corporate America you would have all been shown to the lobby for your filth.

The DNC stood right by and watched Barack Obama, his filthy TV surrogates, his online pigs-in-training in their parents’ basements and his PR team on MSNBC and CNN harass, torture, insult, embarrass, humiliate and rip the far superior candidate apart–because she was a woman!. Then we watched you drag a mediocre man’s sorry inept ass over the nomination line against the will of superdelegates’ constituents. Talk about “Putting lipstick on a pig”!! You people are sick! You bludgeoned us because we are women and now you want us to eat more of your sawdust over an “issue” you’ve been using on us for decades????? Are you kidding or what????Do you have any idea at all what a wake-up call that was for us women with brains and some life experience? Anybody? Anybody?

The Democratic Party’s behavior toward Hillary Clinton this year was beyond revolting. We understand exactly what that means. It means you have all been hypocrites for as long as women have been your captives. We understand now that hanging out with you is akin to living in an abusive relationship. So don’t be bringing us flowers after you broke our jaws. You might fool younger women who haven’t been around too many blocks. They are complacent because they didn’t have to fight for their rights, and you know it—so the DNC and Barack Obama take advantage of them. If they can’t see what’s in front of their own faces, well then let them eat vibrating cell phones! As for the rest of us, we aren’t buying. We know exactly what is going on here. You are killing us with the sawdust in our feed. We choose to survive instead.

Frankly, I find it downright stupid that, after all we have been forced to stand by and watch, you all wonder why we defend Sarah Palin. Do you really think we don’t comprende that under Barack Obama, women would have a whole lot more to worry about than Roe v Wade? Do you not think that we understand that crap rolls downhill and the attitude of a President permeates the workplace and the home? Do you think we’ve eaten so much of your sawdust that we don’t understand completely what is going on here?

My party! The Party that kept so many women carrying your water for you for years, when all you gave us in the end was more sawdust in our feed. The only Sharia thing you didn’t do to Hillary Clinton was set her on fire! And that’s probably only because here in America that’s against the law. So far……

…..and now you all simply cannot understand why we women aren’t “one-issue” voters. Well let me explain, then: It isn’t about “one issue” with us. It’s about all of them. All of those issues you dangled over our heads for too long, when it is now abundantly clear the Democratic Party never gave a shit about us at all except to use “issues” as a means to keep us in line on Election Day.

You could have had a winner. But you now have a loser. We aren’t eating the sawdust any longer. On November 4, you and the rest of the Democratic Party hypocrites can eat your own sawdust for a change. Maybe then you all will Get It. Forget Party loyalty from now on. We women aren’t going to suck up to any party any longer. You are going to have to show us your chops instead of flapping your lips if you want our votes. We are the new Independents. When you start looking out for us, we’ll give you a try as a swing block. And that goes for both parties, and right now, your forced choice is not our choice. You had best think about that next time because we have NO intention of ever putting up with what we saw done to the dignity of women this year again. Donna said you didn’t need us, dandy. You can’t have us. But make no mistake, we are watching. We are watching what you do to Sarah Palin.

And one more thing: Every time you idiots trot out Hillary to clean up that inept Pig Barack Obama’s mess, you open the wounds you created and we get even more pissed off.

Copyright © 2008 Uppity Woman. All rights reserved.

No Quarter’s Bud White had a fascinating conversation with Heidi Li Feldman and Marc Rubin of The Denver Group. It turns out that Mr. White is a real pro (sort of a likeable and more intelligent Charlie Rose) and starts he things off with:

“Keeping the Democratic Party democratic.” That’s the motto of the newly formed The Denver Group. The Denver Group’s stated goal is an open, Democratic convention, with Hillary’s name on the ballot.

Their Web site says:
“To deny Senator Clinton a rightful place on the ballot in an attempt to foster a false image of party unity based on unofficial declarations by super delegates. It will fool no one and only create more disunity. It is in everyone’s best interest, especially the Democratic Party and its chances in November, to hold an open and honest convention.”

****

We’re joined this evening by the founders of The Denver Group, Heidi Li Feldman and Marc Rubin. Good evening to both of you. Thanks for joining us…

Please take a listen and we would love to hear your thoughts on this show.

The interview runs 1 hour and 10 minutes.
-FEC recognized 527 group.
-They want to make ads to be shown in the mass media.
-They want to make sure the Democratic party stays democratic.
-They want a fair and open convention.
-Please contribute money to help this cause; $5.00–$5,000; whatever you can do.
You can visit The Denver Group at http://thedenvergroup.blogspot.com
Heidi Li Feldman’s personal blog is Heidi Li’s Potpourri at http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/
Marc Rubin’s blog is Tom In Paine at http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/
No Quarter is http://noquarterusa.net

Barack Obama has made recent claims indicating pay equity for women would be a top priority if he were elected President. Sounds great. In fact, it might compel some to seriously consider his candidacy.

Don’t be fooled. What we’ve seen of Mr. Obama is a candidacy based on opportunism. Whenever convenient, he will use his prose to proclaim lofty ideals, ideals that many want so badly to believe in, ideals so many want to become realities.

Mr. Obama is all talk. How do we really know if his lofty ideals will translate into actual policy? We certainly can not point to his legislative accomplishments. There are too few. He may have been present but what the hell does that mean - nothing in the context of policy.

Anyone can advocate anything. A true leader turns advocacy into bona-fide action. We’ve not seen this from Mr. Obama. We have seen, unfortunately, reversals and inconsistencies.

Actions

While Mr. Obama may be an advocate for pay equity, analysis of his Senate staff leaves one to wonder. We know the reports that show women on his staff earn roughly $6,000 less than males on staff. But, here is further information:

• Of five staffers that earned more than $100,000 only one was a women
• Of staffers earning more than $23,000/year, 33 were men while 31 were women and the pay difference between them was >$10,000

Comparatively speaking, Senator Hillary Clinton’s Senate staff is comprised more than 2 to 1 women to men. And, the pay is nearly equal. In fact, nearly 70% of Clinton’s staff are women.

Did You Know?

Senator John McCain’s Senate staff, comprised of 69 individuals as of October, 2007 which also includes interns, MORE than half were women. Excluding the 23 interns, the 30 women on his staff earned an average of $59,100 compared to the $56,600 earned by the 16 men.

Remember, talk is cheap. Look for action, past and present. I own my vote.