Skip to main content

President Obama and Lilly Ledbetter (Reuters/Larry Downing)
 

Lilly Ledbetter is a name that has become a convenient euphemism. It means "women's rights." It means "fair pay." It means "victory." When women want to know what the president has done for them, that's the answer they get.

President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on Jan. 29, 2009. It was the first bill he signed as president. And since then, we have been reminded, by the president, his wife, and members of his administration, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again, that he did.

On May 26, 2010, for example, at a fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer, the president said:

We passed the Lilly Ledbetter law that put forward the basic principle that an equal’s day -- that a day’s work should get an equal day’s pay regardless of whether it’s a man or a woman who is doing the work.

And so we have been conditioned to understand that when the president or someone who represents him says "Lilly Ledbetter," it's a reminder that Obama fights for women's rights and that deference and gratitude are owed.

The reality, however, is that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act doesn't do much in the way of equal pay for equal work. A recent American Bar Association survey of cases under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act found 66 cases, most of which determined that the Act did not apply. In Rodriguez-Torres v. Government Development Bank, for example, the court held:

[The Act] does not create substantive rights, but instead clarifies the point of commencement of the statute of limitations in instances of wage discrimination.

And that's it. That's really all the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does. It does not create any new "substantive" rights; it merely addresses the timing of when a lawsuit can be filed. Has it made a difference in the dozen or so cases that would otherwise have been barred from proceeding? Certainly. But the right to proceed with a lawsuit for discrimination is not the same as ending discrimination. It does not guarantee equal pay. It does not protect against discriminatory practices that consistently promote men over women. It merely grants victims of discriminatory pay practices more time to sue.  

To be sure, the Ledbetter Act would not be law today if a Republican occupied the White House. We know this for a fact, of course, because when the Democrats in Congress first passed the bill in 2007, President Bush vetoed it. When Obama became president, Congress passed the bill again, and he signed it into law.

But that's it. He did not have to fight and compromise and expend political capital. No risks were involved. Democrats in Congress had already done the hard work of gathering enough votes to pass the legislation, before the president took office. Even a few (a very few) Republicans voted for the bill, both in 2007 and in 2009.

But to suggest that this single act in any way ended unfair pay practices, or that its impact has been widespread enough to reduce the still pervasive discriminatory practices throughout the country, is simply wrong. And it is unfortunate that it is so often, and so inaccurately, cited as evidence that fair pay is a "key priority" of the president. Such overuse and misuse of its meaning ultimately denigrates it, and the woman for whom the law is named.

Make no mistake: Lilly Ledbetter, the woman, deserves credit for what she did, not what we are supposed to pretend the bill named for her accomplishes. Ms. Ledbetter had the courage to stand up to her employer, going all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for her right to sue for equal pay. Ms. Ledbetter showed great courage; the president, on the other hand, merely signed a bill that addresses the statute of limitations.

And yet, whenever the president or his administration is questioned about his commitment to women's equality, the answer is always the same. Of course he is committed; fair pay is a "key priority." After all, Lilly Ledbetter.

Yet that bill, the first bill he signed as president, is the only significant evidence of the president's commitment to women's equality. Which is why it is the only example his administration ever cites.

And it is not enough.

Because when there are risks involved, when the president must choose between standing up for women and achieving other goals, his commitment to women disappears. And to date, he has been unwilling to expend any political capital to defend, protect, or expand women's rights.

In the health care reform negotiations, for example, the president not only sacrificed women's ability to use their health insurance to pay for a legal medical procedure; he also endorsed the heinous Hyde Amendment, which has, for decades, punished poor women by denying them access to this legal medical procedure.  

This year, at Netroots Nation, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer even said that the president's decision to throw women under the bus, and to defend and expand the Hyde Amendment, was a "simple choice."

A simple choice.

Pfeiffer also refused to acknowledge that there is a war on women, a specific phrase used by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and many other women—and men—in Congress.

The president will not use such language. Instead, we are reminded, in the vaguest of terms, that the president cares. The president is concerned. The president has tried. And the evidence, according to the White House, that the president is concerned about the many fronts of this war, even if he will not call it a war, is, of course, Lilly Ledbetter.

Meanwhile, more than a thousand bills restricting women's health care, privacy, security, and yes, even equal pay, have been introduced throughout the country. Several have been introduced and passed in the House.

They have not passed in the Senate, and in a few instances, the president has threatened to veto those that make it to his desk. (None have.) But rather than address the attacks head on, rather than articulate to the country exactly why and how these bills and attacks would be disastrous for women, we are reminded instead of his devotion to women's equality because the first bill he signed as president was the Lilly Ledbetter Act.

The president has said that women's rights are not merely a matter of politics to him. On May 19, 2011, addressing the Women's Leadership forum, the president said:

The cause of women aren’t just important to me as President -- they are personal.  I saw my grandmother hit a glass ceiling at the bank where she worked for years.  She could have been the best bank president they ever had, but she never got that chance.  I saw how Michelle was made to balance work and family when she was a vice president at a hospital.  As a father, I want to make sure that my daughters and all of our daughters have the chance to be anything that they want.  That’s the America that we believe in.  That’s the America we’re fighting for.
   

It's a compelling argument for why the president claims that women's equality is so important to him, not just politically, but personally. And yet, the president has said little, and done less, to promote an agenda of women's equality.

Despite his constant invocation of Lilly Ledbetter, despite his administration's insistence that equal pay is a "key priority," he said not a word in his State of the Union speech this year. Or the year before.

Such silence hardly suggests that equal pay, let alone women's equality in general, is a "key priority" for this president.

There are several proposed bills languishing in the House that would address some of the assaults and unfair conditions American women still endure today, from the Maternal Health Accountability Act to the Paycheck Fairness Act, and even a re-introduction of the Equal Rights Amendment, all of which would have a far greater impact on American women than the Lilly Ledbetter Act's tweaking of the statute of limitations.

In fact, Tina Tchen, assistant to the President, Chief of Staff to the First Lady, and Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, recently wrote on the White House blog:

As an Illinois State Senator, [Obama] was a sponsor of a joint resolution ratifying The Equal Rights Amendment, and as a United States Senator he was a cosponsor of the Women’s Equality Amendment. Under then-Senator Obama’s leadership, the 2008 Democratic Party Platform also reaffirmed support for the Equal Rights Amendment and laid out a strong stance to ensure women’s rights.

As president, however, Obama has done nothing to explain the importance of, at long last, passing this critical amendment, which is not merely a symbolic exercise, but a necessary step in protecting and expanding women's equality, particularly in a current political climate that is so hostile to women.

Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion for the court in the recent Wal-Mart case, has shown exactly why such an amendment is necessary. Earlier this year, he said that the Constitution provides no equal protection for women.

Is it any wonder, then, that this same Supreme Court Justice would rule that no evidence was sufficient to prove that Wal-Mart had discriminated against its female employees? While the entire court sided with him on procedural grounds, Justice Ginsburg rejected his rejection of the overwhelming statistical and anecdotal evidence in her dissent, which did suggest that Wal-Mart's policies systematically discriminated against women.

The White House, however, has been silent on this decision. When asked whether the president had any opinion of it, Press Secretary Jay Carney said no. But he was quick to remind us:

I can tell you this, that ending pay discrimination in the workplace is a key priority for the President. Signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was one of his first acts as President and he has continued to call for additional legislation to equalize pay in the workplace.

And the next day:

As I said yesterday, ending pay discrimination is a key priority for the President, and that is why signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was one of his first acts.  It is also why he continues to call for new legislation.  In particular, the President has called for Congress to enact the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, as you may remember, the House passed over two years ago but the Senate did not, coming only two votes short of cloture.

The Lilly Ledbetter Act may have given women more time to file lawsuits for discrimination, but if the Supreme Court can ultimately decide that no amount of evidence proves discriminatory practices, or that the Constitution does not even prohibit gender discrimination, the Lilly Ledbetter Act means little for the millions of women who still face such discrimination.

The president's personal observations of women's inequality, and his wish to see his daughters grow up in a world of equal opportunities, are good reasons for him to argue loudly and passionately that we as a nation must fight back against the assaults on women and we must pass legislation that further expands women's equality.

But let's not overlook the political benefits to the president. Certainly, speaking out against the war on women and showing just how much women's rights are a "key priority," and not just a talking point, would help him to recapture the Democratic women who voted for him in overwhelming numbers in 2008, but who sided with Republicans in 2010. Clearly, the now-stale Lilly Ledbetter mantra was not sufficient, in the last election, for women to believe that the Democratic Party is unquestionably the party that best represents women.  

It is true that the president does not have control over the state legislatures that are attacking women on a daily basis. And he cannot force the Republican-controlled House to pass legislation that he says he wants to sign into law. But he can use the power of his office to explain to the country why such attacks are unacceptable and harmful. He can speak directly and aggressively against such attacks and for the passage of every proposed law that would greatly improve the lives of American women.

He can and he should, not only because, as he says, women's equality is a personal concern of his, not only because it would benefit him and the Democratic Party politically, but also because, and most importantly, it is the right thing to do.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  A predictably dishonest piece (31+ / 0-)

    There was never any possibility of overthrowing the Hyde Amentment in Health Care. The kind of Naderite thinking that now dominates this Dkos is unworthy of any support. You are just dishonest. Period.

  •  Stack a few of these together (11+ / 0-)

    and you begin to develop an image of an administration that is a complete ruse.

  •  The gap between rhetoric and reality (52+ / 0-)

    ... is the measure of how this president has failed as a leader.  Making nice speeches and expressing admirable sentiments is enough when you're a presidential candidate, but once you're elected you have to demonstrate that your pretty words actually mean something to you, but fighting for the causes you espouse.

    That's what leaders do.  The president by and large has not done that, but has preferred holing up in the Oval Office to play inside baseball with his Republican opponents.  He's a merchant in a bazaar, not an armored leader on horseback.  Trouble is, he's a lousy negotiator, so he's not even very good at the task he's set himself to.

    Obama did nothing on Lilly Ledbetter but pick up his pens and grab the credit.  I'm not convinced he did much more on DADT, for that matter.  And I'm waiting for that jobs program that would distinguish the president's economic plans from the Republican tax-cut-and-punish-poor-folks agenda.  

    We have a president who can't lead his way out of a paper bag.  That means we've all got to become leaders together.  We've got to form up the parade and start marching.  When the parade gets big enough, he won't have any choice but to scramble to the front of it.

    DC politicians don't realize they're corrupt for the same reason fish don't realize they're wet.

    by Dallasdoc on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:10:59 AM PDT

    •  in defense of Obama . . . . . . . (8+ / 0-)

      He's an inexperienced outsider who wasn't supposed to win the election anyway--none of the party officialdom wanted him; they all thought they'd be coronating Hillary until he built an entire campaign outside of the party and won it on his own.

      I've never believed that Obama's heart wasn't in the right place. What I do believe is that as an inexperienced outsider, he simply doesn't have the capacity to impose his own agenda, especially when his own party opposes that agenda. As a result, Obama is like Reagan--a figurehead who makes the pretty speeches while all the decisions are made by the Clintonistas who surround him.

      Obama is not our problem.  Our problem is still, as it has been for 30 years now, that the Dem Party has remade itself into the Repug-Lite Party.

      Neither party is on our side.  We'll never get anything passed, no matter who is President, because neither party WANTS to pass any of our agenda.

    •  Im persuaded that he is (7+ / 0-)

      Legislator at heart not a leader.

      He doesnt know how or have the instinct to drive social change.  (I can hear all you health car comments already- It was an exercise in minor change that empowers the most corrosive elements of the system-the insurers IMHO)

      The President that  being a legislator at heart worked for in my lifetime was LBJ.  He had the  had the relationships and experience of a different era that made it work

      I don't hate Obama but he is so much lss than he could have been.  

      Full disclosure I had 4 chances to vote for the PResident between Caucus primary and general in 08.  I only voted for him the last time.  He is what he is. And that is a guy who would rather get a small thing done than fight for a big thing to help change the conversation and society in a fundamental way.

      At least he is smart  and not evil unlike the last guy who had the job.  

    •  When confronted by (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, tardis10, TimmyB, FogCityJohn

      A. Philip Randolph, one of the first and greatest AA labor leaders in American history, about his failure to use his position and the power of the bully pulpit to push for progressive labor laws and civil rights for minorities, FDR said, "I agree, now go out and make me do it."

      Yeah, I know the quote is familiar.  I know it comes across as trite to cite it.  But it's worth noting that not only does President Obama not want his liberal base to "make him do it" on any number of priority issues, he let's his staff call us "fucking retards" when we try.  This president is no friend of the left.  He used us when he needed us, and he tossed us aside when he was done.  Exhibit A:  now all of the sudden he's cozying back up to us as he ramps up his reelection campaign.

      Will we ever learn?  My guess is a resounding no.

      Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.

      by Fed up Fed on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:10:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He doesn't want his base breathing down his neck (12+ / 0-)

        No president does -- it only complicates their jobs.  But if his base doesn't breathe down his neck and "make him do it" it just won't get done.

        Obama's defenders constantly wield that quote to blame progressives for Obama's own failings.  But those same defenders get apoplectic when somebody gets it together to actually try to make him do something:  look at the reaction to Dan Choi, or to our own nyceve and slinkerwink during the health care wars.  How, I wonder, can we make him do something without pushing uncomfortable demands on him and criticizing inaction?

        DC politicians don't realize they're corrupt for the same reason fish don't realize they're wet.

        by Dallasdoc on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:15:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think we're really "his base" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dallasdoc, artisan

          I think he's a moderately conservative corporate Democrat who's talent for rhetoric and his implausibly perfect personal story roped in the left despite how transparently cynical his campaign was on all the issues we truly cared about.  His lackadaisical efforts at actually getting progressive legislation done, his heroic campaign to protect corporations from the consequences of their own malfeasance, and his senior staff's open disdain for the "professional left," these things add up, for me, as a giant neon sign that says, "HE'S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU."

          Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.

          by Fed up Fed on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:57:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "make me do it" and "bitch uselessly" not same (0+ / 0-)

        "Make me do it" means get some feet on the street, strike, win elections, force the action.

        A. Phillip Randolph won on arms jobs because he threatened to bring 100,000 people to DC to protest and FDR knew he could deliver.

    •  Token legislation isn't enough (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, Lucy2009

      Its wrong to pass one limited bill while ignoring or obstructing more substantive legislation.

      And the "its not my job" excuse doesn't fly.

      "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

      by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:40:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you Dallasdoc. Sums up my own (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, Situational Lefty

      feelings perfectly.

      "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth". Albert Einstein

      by Sydserious on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:57:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This President saved the auto industry (5+ / 0-)

      including firing GM's CEO and bullying creditors to back Chrylser in the process.

      You despise Obama with a passion just short of expat's, so it's no wonder that you dismiss Lilly Ledbetter, saving the auto industry, resetting relations with Russia, doing away with OBL, etc.  It's not like you're capable of any sort of objective analysis, given your utter contempt for the President.

  •  Thanks for this. (17+ / 0-)

    I see the distortion of the Lilly Ledbetter act (as well as other acts that have been signed) into something it's not on a fairly frequent basis.

    I can relate to many of the thoughts you expressed in this piece.

    "I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans." - President Obama, 2/28/08

    by indiemcemopants on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:12:35 AM PDT

  •  We cannot let (16+ / 0-)

    This substantive but relatively minor victory distract from the fact that there is a war on women on multiple fronts.  In the battles over reproductive rights, employment non-discrimination, equal attention to women's health, etc., women's rights were advanced, not won.  Incremental victories are great, but our leaders need to understand and acknowledge out loud, that the battle never stops.

    Unfortunately, we have to make them do it.

    If your issue is still Democrat vs. Republican, you've been punked by the Oligarchy.

    by MrJayTee on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:14:12 AM PDT

    •  Equal attention to women's health? (0+ / 0-)

      I would like to know what failing you are referring too. The National institute of health spends far more on researching women  health issues than men and rightly so. Women's rights are won unless you are waiting for women in combat.

      I don't buy the war on women rhetoric. It sounded silly the first time I heard it and it's not getting any better now. If you want to look at the state of women's equality try looking at Gen X instead of baby boomers. It's equal right now with women coming out ahead.

      We need to pick some new fights for things we have not accomplished instead looking for random excuses to rehash old fights we know we can win.

      Abortion is the exception. That is a fight we are losing right now as peoples views have shifted over the years. Women are not being disowned for getting pregnant, and single mothers are common. We don't have women throwing themselves downstairs or getting out the clothes hanger to hold up as examples. We need some new talking points to hold that ground.

      •  are you a Dem? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tardis10

        I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson

        by Lucy2009 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:49:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes I am a dem born and raised (0+ / 0-)

          I spent some time trying to understand conservatives you know watching fox news, and i realized where we look and sound stupid. Something like a war on women is countered by Michelle Bachmann winning Iowa. Then what we gonna say? A "War on abortion" gets right to the point and wakes women up.  This whole fight is about abortion so call it what it is.

           The equal pay stuff is a bit dated since it's already illegal the next legal remedy would be a huge change in the work place. Exposing everyone's salaries might have unintended consequences for only a marginal gain in women's pay. It could result in salaries getting dropped across the board because individuals would have little negotiating power.  Employers could claim their raise would disrupt the pay balance. There are valid concerns with it to say the least.

          •  Ok. Are you a man or woman? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pandoras Box, FogCityJohn

            I think you are very misguided.

            Abortion is not just a woman problem and it should be fought for hot and heavy by everyone on the left including politicians.

            There is a war on women. Start reading the diaries about it on the DKos. The lack of birth control availability at pharmacies all over the country because it violates the pharmacists moral sensibilities! At the same time outlawing abortion all over the country. At the same time as paying women about 25% less for the same job/experience/education. At the same time making after school programs non-existent so women can work. At the same time defunding PP and thus making it impossible for MANY poor and working class women to get healthcare, cancer screenings, birth control while they need it. As the same time allowing our public schools to deteriorate horribly....particularly in poorer areas.

            Get the idea? That's a war. When you fuck over the women of a country, you fuck over the children of the country. When that happens the whole country is fucked shortly thereafter.

            I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson

            by Lucy2009 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 01:05:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You "don't buy the war on women rhetoric"? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn

        No shit, really?  That's a big surprise!

        If your issue is still Democrat vs. Republican, you've been punked by the Oligarchy.

        by MrJayTee on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:08:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, yes we DO. (5+ / 0-)
        We don't have women throwing themselves downstairs or getting out the clothes hanger to hold up as examples.

        I work part-time as a transcriber for a question answering service.  I get young girls calling all the time asking how to self-abort.  I hear their voices and many are crying, and some are trying to self-abort during the call itself.  

        They may not throw themselves down the stairs - now they seem to throw themselves into walls, repeatedly.  I've heard them do it.  They also deliberately overdose.  I won't tell you what else they do because it makes me want to vomit.

        If there isn't an abortion clinic within 500 miles of someone, and parental notification laws can get some young women thrown out of their homes or worse, it's inevitable that this happens.  And I get a LOT of these calls.

        you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

        by Dem Beans on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:20:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good Publisize it! (not really good) (0+ / 0-)

          You know what I mean, those are the kind of stories that need to be put out there. Abortion has been slipping in the polls and reaching selling the need to the next generation of voters is very important.

      •  Do you remember the exchange (4+ / 0-)

        where Jon Kyl said that that it was wrong to force health insurance companies to cover pregnancy, because he didn't need that coverage:

        Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) argued, “I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.”

        Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): "I think your mother probably did."


        Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

        by elfling on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:23:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Unfortunately.... (14+ / 0-)
    He can and he should, not only because, as he says, women's equality is a personal concern of his, not only because it would benefit him and the Democratic Party politically, but also because, and most importantly, it is the right thing to do.

    ...we've seen enough examples at this point to know that, with this president, the "right thing to do" is not nearly as compelling as the expedient, or the proceessy, or the compromisey, or the bipartisany thing to do.  
  •  thank you. slight rhetorical tweak ... (8+ / 0-)

    I don't care for the rhetoric of "expansion of rights" because full equality is a basic human right and what we are looking for are protections and guarantees so that that foundational right can have free extension and embodiment.

    There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing. -- Robert Hass

    by srkp23 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:17:15 AM PDT

  •  PURIST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lucy2009, kerplunk

    IT'S YOUR FAULT THAT REPUBLICANS WIN ELECTIONS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (snicker)  (giggle)

  •  I wonder what Democratic president (13+ / 0-)

    wouldn't have signed it when served up to them on a platter.

    To be sure, the Ledbetter Act would not be law today if a Republican occupied the White House. We know this for a fact, of course, because when the Democrats in Congress first passed the bill in 2007, President Bush vetoed it. When Obama became president, Congress passed the bill again, and he signed it into law.

    To every millionaire who decries they don't want their grandchildren paying for the deficit, I say: PAY MORE TAXES NOW and your grandkids won't have a deficit burden.

    by gooderservice on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:19:18 AM PDT

    •  I can't think of one who wouldn't have, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PoliticalJunkessa, foufou

      but so what?

      or...

      Why we must keep the incumbent.

      [side note: my congressman wrote Ledbetter and I celebrate him for it]

      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

      by Sybil Liberty on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:29:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So what? Obama didn't do anything special, (0+ / 0-)

        yet some people want to give him all the credit.

        The people/person that deserves the credit, for instance, is your congressman, to start with.

        To every millionaire who decries they don't want their grandchildren paying for the deficit, I say: PAY MORE TAXES NOW and your grandkids won't have a deficit burden.

        by gooderservice on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 01:13:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  helluvalot more special (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jeff Simpson, foufou

          than what bush did with my congressman's bill

          "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

          by Sybil Liberty on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 01:28:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  also assuming (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou

          you're speaking from a female worker's point of view

          "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

          by Sybil Liberty on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 01:36:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Female point of view? (0+ / 0-)

            Like males can't have the same viewpoint?

            To every millionaire who decries they don't want their grandchildren paying for the deficit, I say: PAY MORE TAXES NOW and your grandkids won't have a deficit burden.

            by gooderservice on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:03:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  dunno...did you ever (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              foufou

              do equal work for lesser pay than a woman?

              In my lifetime I have certainly earned less than a man  doing the exact same job for the exact same bosses. Been there. Done that. (it's probably safe to say the diarist wasn't even born at the time) And even tho it's no longer legal to discriminate against women in the workplace, I'm glad the statute of limitations has been lifted for those like Lily Ledbetter, whose bosses defiled the law.

              Unlike you, I do think it's special.

              No. matter. who. signed. it.

               (Which I do believe is the problem for you and some of your pals.)

              "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

              by Sybil Liberty on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:39:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The law wasn't about equal pay. (0+ / 0-)

                The law was about when a woman could sue when she found out that she was getting paid less.  

                The law provided nothing for equal pay for women.

                To every millionaire who decries they don't want their grandchildren paying for the deficit, I say: PAY MORE TAXES NOW and your grandkids won't have a deficit burden.

                by gooderservice on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:52:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Balderdash..... (7+ / 0-)

    Has the diarist checked w/ the woman in Kansas, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, Michigan & most of all Wisconsin?   Ask them how many pieces of legislation have been passed by Republicans since January that benefit them in any way, shape or form.

    Republican Governor Sam Brownback  just passed legislation to close down the last 3 remaining abortion clinics in his state.  His bill demands architectural changes such as number of janitor's closets, &  new requirements such as increased sq footage of recovery & interviewing rooms, lighting, & exits.

    The new requirements were mailed on a Friday.  Planned Parenthood received them Monday, and the inspection was  Wednesday.  The clinics close if they don't pass inspection.

    Now what was that again about Obama disenfranchising women?  

    •  betta then the other guys (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux

      oh to compare POTUS with Brownback....meh.

      "You can almost judge how screwed up somebody is by the kind of toilet paper they use." Don van Vliet, Captain Beefheart

      by Muggsy on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:27:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps the women in those states (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      foufou

      agree with what their governments are doing.... anybody think of that?  Kansas has been blood red for years.  But Obama should run to the rescue and speak on behalf of these women?

      Horrible scenario to consider, but it is a possibility that obviously hasn't been considered by this author.

      Many of today's "progressives" wouldn't have lasted in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s. Two years in and their thrill is all gone. Poor things.

      by PoliticalJunkessa on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:38:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow, brutal (0+ / 0-)

        I know this will be shocking to you but not everyone in Kansas voted for the theocrats.  But hey, I guess we should all just move in order for our president to lift a finger on our behalf.

        Kansas City, KS doesn't vote Republican, but every low-income woman who lives there is losing access to women's health clinics in eastern Kansas.  But hey, why should he speak on behalf of 'these women'?  They're only the ones who will suffer - even though they probably voted for Obama.

        Live in Wichita, a union town thanks to aircraft manufacturing?  Guess you're fucked, too bad!

        Live in rural central Kansas?  Just lost your clinic, but don't expect anyone to ease your suffering because you're one of 'those women' who do manual farm labor and probably don't even vote.  I'm sure that'll get them to support Democrats in the future.

        This kind of shit makes me crazy.  Kansas is not 'blood red'.  We regularly elect Democratic governors.  And even if we didn't, women here don't need to be abandoned to the mob.

        you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

        by Dem Beans on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:22:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "True progressives" don't really give a damn about (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mallyroyal, zizi, foufou, citizen k

      any of that.

      Obama should run on repealing Lilly Ledbetter, given that it's a useless shit sandwich anyway, or at least, the "true progressives" would like everyone to think as much.

  •  Thanks, Kaili. nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dallasdoc, Marjmar, PAbluestater

    America is so not like her hype.

    by OLinda on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:25:13 AM PDT

  •  Thank you! (8+ / 0-)

    This point has been made for years, but never better than you just made it. Ledbetter was important, but its' importance has been overblown consistently and cynically to reap a political advantage that, in my view, is wholly undeserved.

  •  This is like so much of what he has "accomplished" (17+ / 0-)

    A few crumbs for the left and huge gifts to corporations, health care insurers, Wall Street and the moneyed class.

    It's worse than "Let them eat cake." It's "Let them eat crumbs."

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:25:43 AM PDT

    •  It's "tokenism" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kerplunk, accumbens, Dem Beans

      Supporting a couple of non-controversial bills with limited impact to create the illusion of solving the problem.

      Lilly Ledbetter was the first step in a long list of remedies we need to put into place.  If Obama wants to campaign on his support for women's rights, he needs to do more than wave the Lilly Ledbetter flag.

      "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

      by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:44:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We already know one thing about 2012 (8+ / 0-)

    The Democratic campaign will be milquetoast, the Republican campaign will be insane.

    "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

    by randomfacts on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:25:49 AM PDT

  •  But as leader of the Democratic Party... (3+ / 0-)
    It is true that the president does not have control over the state legislatures that are attacking women on a daily basis.

    ... he certainly should have had his political team, or he, himself, should have met with and encouraged, lobbied for the New Jersey DEMOCRATS not to have voted for Christie's war on public employees, some of them who are single mothers.

    If we were to believe that Obama should be given credit for New York passing marriage equality,

    I often wondered what the make up of the NY Senate Assembly would have been had it not been for the Obama Administration bold move to step into the mix.

    then Obama should continue making those bold moves especially when it's Democrats in state legislatures who are screwing women.

    To every millionaire who decries they don't want their grandchildren paying for the deficit, I say: PAY MORE TAXES NOW and your grandkids won't have a deficit burden.

    by gooderservice on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:26:57 AM PDT

    •  he's not the leader of the Democratic Party. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina

      The Democratic Party didn't even want him in the first place--he won the nomination DESPITE the Clintonista-dominated party leadership, not BECAUSE of it.

      Whether Obama is really a progressive or not is completely irrelevant when in any case the Democratic Party is not, hasn't been for three decades now, and probably won't be for another three decades unless forced into it.

    •  He will not spend an ounce of political capital (8+ / 0-)

      on anything that will not help him get reelected, or might hurt him, in the final balance. It's all a calculation to him and his team. This administration is far more about politics and optics than policy. Which is funny cuz they suck at that too.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:52:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This, I Know, Will Be a Difficult Diary (22+ / 0-)

    For some to read.

    But it is the truth.  

    President Obama deserves, and should get, credit for signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which restored the law to where it was prior to SCOTUS' gutting the "continuing violation doctrine" (which determined how the statute of limitations was calculated, but no more) in employment discrimination law.  He also gets credit for voting for cloture when the original 2007 bill which never made it out of the Senate was brought to the floor for debate in April, 2008.  (A subsequent bill sponsored by the late Senator Kennedy never made it out of committee; thus the issue was dead until the 111th Congress re-introduced the measure in January, 2009; the President, of course, did not get to vote on this bill at all since he had been elected President and Roland Burris now held his seat in Illinois.)

    But that's all she wrote when it comes to President Obama and the Ledbetter Act.  The bill it was delivered to the President fully adopted and he didn't even vote on it, because he couldn't.  All he did was sign it.  He did not even work in the Senate for the act's passage because the first failed Lilly Ledbetter bill was introduced long after he announced he was running for President, and he was ineligible to vote on the second.

    The most important take-away is, and always has been, that the Act does no more than you state - restore what had previously been a method for calculating the statute of limitations on employment discrimination claims.  I have to no avail tried to point that out several times to folks who keep including it on a list of all the great things that President Obama has done, trying to help people understand that overstating a case is often far more detrimental in the long-run because it allows one's political enemies to make you out to be ignorant at best and a liar at worst.

    That being said, I have made it my policy not to question what is "in the President's heart".  I take him at his word in terms of what he says he cares about.  I think this is what all politicians deserve, even if no more.  So, I have no reason to believe that he doesn't care about the cause of women as a human being and push back against that idea.  We don't know.  What we do know is that, as has been the case with many issues near and dear to progressive/liberal hearts, that since becoming President he has not raised his voice to join those who are fighting the good fight on the legislative war against women, either.  I wish, as it relates to this and quite a few other political subjects, that he would.

    But I'm not holding my breath that he will, either.  So it's up to us to fight the fight based on principle, regardless of what President Obama says, or doesn't say.

    If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

    by shanikka on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:30:57 AM PDT

    •  I find that what's in someone's heart (4+ / 0-)

      is usually telegraphed by what they do or don't do on a sustained basis. It's simply impossible for someone to believe in X and then do the opposite of X or not do X for years on end and not go insane from cognitive dissonance.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:50:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He did push the Paycheck Fairness Act (6+ / 0-)

      but it was blocked in the Senate.  

      The Paycheck Fairness Act is legislation being considered by the United States Congress to expand the scope of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Fair Labor Standards Act as part of an effort to address male–female income disparity in the United States. Census Bureau data shows that women made 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, a disparity sometimes attributed to systematic discrimination against women.

      The House of Represen­tatives approved the bill in January 2009.[1] The United States Senate failed to move the bill forward in November 2010.[2] President Barack Obama said in March 2011 that he will continue to fight for the goals in the Paycheck Fairness Act.[3] The bill was reintroduced in both houses of Congress in April 2011.[4]

      The bill being considered would make it easier for those who are the targets of wage discrimination to address the issue, allowing employees to disclose salary information with co-workers despite workplace rules prohibiting disclosure. Employers would be required to show that any wage discrepancies are based on genuine business requirements and are related to specific characteristics of the position that are not based on gender. The bill would also prohibit retaliation by companies against individuals who raise wage-parity issues, provide resources to help women develop their negotiating skills and would include further research to understand the lingering causes of wage discrepancies between men and women.

      The 2010 Senate version of the bill had the support of the Obama administration and that of Democrats in the Senate, with President Barack Obama calling the legislation "a common-sense bill that will help ensure that men and women who do equal work receive the equal pay that they and their families deserve".[5] The American Civil Liberties Union supported S.182, citing the 2008 data from the United States Census Bureau that women earned 77 cents for each dollar earned by a man, while the corresponding ratios were 61 cents for African-American women and 52 cents for Hispanic women as compared to wages of white males.[6] The American Association of University Women also supported the bill, citing the organization's 2007 research report, Behind the Pay Gap, which showed that women earn less than their male colleagues just one year out of college. The pay gap has widened 10 years after graduation.[7]

      However, the 2010 bill had no Republican Party co-sponsors, though a group of four Republican senators had supported an earlier bill to address gender-based wage discrimination, including Susan Collins, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Lisa Murkowski and Olympia Snowe.[8]

    •  Women deserve better (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, kerplunk

      than a Dem president who is AWOL on this issue.  Its a long established Dem Party tradition that Dems promote equal rights for women.  It's expected, there's no risk to Obama in speaking out on the issue and being part of the team.

      "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

      by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:53:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Recc'ing this comment, especially this: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dem Beans
      I have to no avail tried to point that out several times to folks who keep including it on a list of all the great things that President Obama has done, trying to help people understand that overstating a case is often far more detrimental in the long-run because it allows one's political enemies to make you out to be ignorant at best and a liar at worst.

      I have done the same thing when confronted with a list of the president's "accomplishments" in the area of HIV.  They are consistently overstated.  The problem I have with the overstatement is not just that it's inaccurate, but that it's downright harmful.  Such overstatements convince everyone but the few of us who are reasonably well informed about HIV that everything is fine and dandy on the HIV front, when nothing could be further from the truth.  I should hardly need to explain the adverse consequences this can have for the many people who depend on government assistance for their HIV care.

      It's not as if the president has no valid achievements in this area.  He issued the very first National HIV/AIDS Strategy, which is a very good thing, and will be a much better thing if the folks in DC ever decide to fund it.  But it does no one any good to claim that President Obama has done more than he has.  Particularly not in policy areas like this.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 04:42:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn

        This is my point, but far better stated:

        It's not as if the president has no valid achievements in this area.

        The President has accomplished quite a bit in 2 years.  Much of it, however, is the quiet kind of backbone work that doesn't make for "sexy lists" - yet nonetheless is important work.  Those accomplishments are, however,  eschewed in favor of big ticket items being overstated.  Which carries significant risks because at least some folks bother to do their homework.

        I personally am increasingly persuaded that a key factor in all these dust-ups over the President is that he's a "nose to the grindstone" quiet type of President (whether or not I think the times call for that) who would rather rack up 1,000 small yet important accomplishments than a few more politically "visible" ones, playing in a political theater where the latter is far more valued.  Thus resulting in hyperbole from supporters and opponents alike.

        If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

        by shanikka on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 05:20:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You know who this president reminds me of? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kerplunk

    http://www.317am.net/...

    yep, says all the right stuff to your face, kisses your ass, and then behind our backs totally screws us.

    Bad is never good until worse happens

    by dark daze on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:32:13 AM PDT

  •  This is a great idea. (3+ / 0-)

    I would like to have the President express our collective commitment to the rights of women in our own country and around the world.  Even though as I watched the First Lady speak with women in South Africa and saw the side this administration is taking for women leaders and don't need any more reassurance,  I know the President can frame this issue as no one else can.  

    I remember his speech on race and how he was able to put into words our aspirations.  If he does a speech on women's rights, I will be on the edge of my seat again.

    However, this doesn't mean that people who have such strong insecurities that they need to force inequality just to compensate will respond.  They have deeper struggles and the President's words will not reach them.

  •  I just wish women were united for women. (5+ / 0-)

    That is the real problem.  You are the majority of voters.  If you just exercised your power, instead of 1/2 of you enabling the women-haters, you'd have most of what you wanted (as quickly as our dysfunctional system could do it, of course).  That we are still arguing over whether the government can make u criminals for trying to control your own wombs, almost 40 years after Roe, says it all.  If women don't respect and stand up for themselves - and that mean most women, not just the less than 30% who actually vote for pro-women policies (1/2 don;t vote at all, 45-40% of those who do vote for a party that IMO would enslave them in a heartbeat if it could - all for the 'poor dears' own good of course).  Heck, if they just told their men they wke up in the night while he's asleep and if he doesn;t start getting his shit together... well, you know.  :)  But 1/2 seem to want to punish the other 1/2... for what? Just for having sex?  For enjoying it?  I don't get it.  

    'Course, that's just my 2 cents. I could be wrong.

  •  Equal Rights Amendment. (6+ / 0-)

    Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

    Now.

    It's time to push it.  It's always been time to push it.  We've heard that "it's not necessary", because everything's now in statute.

    Well, when the SCOTUS is reinterpreting every statute, when legislatures are taking rights away - And how far are we from a decision that discrimination is consistent with the constitution?  Scalia has himself said so.

    It's time for the Equal Rights Amendment.  It's way past time.  For us, for our daughters - it's time.  

    RECOUNT. Recall - We did it!! VOTE against the frauds, then VOTE TO TAKE WISCONSIN BACK!!! Rescind. Rebuild. Now with more voting, thanks to republican dirty tricks.

    by stcroix cheesehead on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:39:02 AM PDT

  •  Great... Do more or your a one hit wonder n/t (0+ / 0-)

    there is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over -6.88/-4.31

    by DeadB0y on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:43:37 AM PDT

  •  I know I'm going to be killed for this, but (12+ / 0-)

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...

    Washington (CNN)-President Obama noted that March is Women's History Month, calling it a time to celebrate "the progress that women have made" and the "women throughout history who have made that progress possible," in the weekly presidential address.

    He recalled how Eleanor Roosevelt challenged President Kennedy to find qualified women for top posts in his administration, and that Kennedy asked her to head a new presidential commission to study the status of women in America in response. "It's been almost fifty years since the Roosevelt commission published its findings -and there have been few similar efforts by the government in the decades that followed," the president remarked.

    Last week the White House issued what Obama described as a "comprehensive report on the status of women in the spirit of the one

    The report, Obama said, listed areas of progress and need for improvement, including the finding that women are more likely than men to attend and graduate from college although they still, on average, earn less than men, are "still more likely to live in poverty in this country," and "there are areas like math and engineering where women are vastly outnumbered by their male counterparts."

    The president framed equal pay for equal work as a "family issue" and acknowledged the need to "harness the talents of all our people" as a strategy to "win the future."

    He also pointed out that one of his first acts as president was to "women who've been discriminated against in their salaries could have their day in court to make it right," but Obama openly denounced the fact that another bill failed to pass the Senate by two votes.

    "I was disappointed when an important bill to give women more power to stop pay disparities-the Paycheck Fairness Act-was blocked …And that's why I'm going to keep up the fight to pass the reforms in that bill," he affirmed.

    Like Eleanor Roosevelt, the president said, "We have to work even harder to close the gaps that still exist, and to uphold that simple American ideal: we are all equal and deserving of the chance to pursue our own version of happiness."

    http://blog.amnestyusa.org/...

    Among other things, this legislation means that every Native American and Alaska Native woman now finally has the chance to get a police response, have access to a rape kit, the opportunity to see her case prosecuted and see justice served for crimes committed against her. It standardizes the much needed sexual assault protocols within the Indian Health Service to ensure that survivors of sexual assault will receive proper treatment and care and that crucial forensic evidence will be collected.  The Act also clarifies who is responsible for prosecuting crimes in tribal communities and restores authority, resources, and information to tribal governments.  While taking initial steps to restore power to tribal governments to take more direct action in cases of violent crime, it will also hold federal authorities accountable for failure to prosecute.

    http://abcnews.go.com/...

    A new White House Council on Women and Girls is assessing every government agency to see if its programs do enough to benefit women.

    "This has been the most open White House to women's issues and groups," says Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal, a women's rights activist for four decades. "In the first six months, we have been brought in more than ever before. … It's very impressive."

    Says Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW): "We clearly have a friend in the White House."

    http://www.thegrio.com/...

    President Barack Obama, dealing carefully with the explosive issue of abortion, said Wednesday that he will choose a Supreme Court nominee who pays heed to women's rights and personal privacy when interpreting the Constitution.

    He could definitely do more (I omitted what Michele and Biden have done) but lets not frame like he has done nothing.  

    •  ? (6+ / 0-)
      President Obama noted
      He recalled
      Last week the White House issued...a...report
      The president framed...
      He also pointed out...
      A new White House Council on Women and Girls is assessing every government agency
      President Barack Obama, dealing carefully with the explosive issue of abortion, said Wednesday

      Which parts are the actions he has actually taken? I see noted, recalled, said... but that's it.

      "I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans." - President Obama, 2/28/08

      by indiemcemopants on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:02:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well she called for more speeches in the diary (5+ / 0-)

        and he spoke on March 12, 2011 about women's issues.  She asked for more legislation and he signed the act to ensure women on reservations receive adequate treatment and prosecutions of sexual assault.  He also would have signed the Paycheck Fairness Act but it stalled in the Senate with no Republican sponsors and only the female Republicans voting for it.   He also nominated and got confirmed two female Supreme Court Justices who are dedicated to protecting abortion rights.   So he has taken actions - in truth, I'm not sure what more actions he could have taken except more speeches, which largely get him panned now on DKos.   What other concrete actions would you have like to see him do on women's rights issues?  (I'm really asking, this isn't set up to be a gotcha).  The Hyde amendment is a black eye, but its obviously something he thought he needed to do to get Health Care Insurance reform.   So other than Hyde - what is he to do?  

        •  He did take a rather nasty action on health care (0+ / 0-)

          Obama did act on abortion, and he certainly didn't support choice.  I am not sure about Kagan and abortion.  She pushed Clinton to support partial birth abortion ban.

          http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/...

          This week, a commotion arose over the question of whether Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans, also known as high risk pools, can include abortion coverage.  The Obama Administration responded immediately by imposing a total ban on abortion coverage in the pools that echoes the Stupak Amendment, even though nothing in the law requires such action.

      •  Executive branch vs Legislative (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eXtina, foufou

        If those verbs don't suit you, which would be better in terms of feasibility, legality and likelihood of success?

        For extra credit, since "it's the economy, stupid", which of your preferred verbs leaves political capital, legislative time and administrative resources to address the economy?

        "If you think the other side is EVIL, you're part of the problem." -Chris Matthews

        by malharden on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:19:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Forgot to add (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cryptodira, malharden, Jeff Simpson

        he also supports CEDAW - an international treaty to end all forms of discrimination against women, which is awaiting Senate ratification.

        http://www.cedaw2010.org/

        And you know, he signed the Lily Ledbetter Act - which I know any Democratic President would have done.  Although I don't really understand the criticism.  Isn't that why we elect Dem presidents, so that they can sign into the law the things most Dems want?  So it isn't an Obama hero moment, but it is a reason to vote for Dems which I thought was one of the points of this site.  

    •  Why would that be? (6+ / 0-)

      I mean hey, complaining that he doesn't spend his political capital where you want it, while simultaneously eroding what political capital he does have....while being snarky during your opportunities to actually hold the administration accountable? Hell that's a winning formula for making progress on key issues.

      "If you think the other side is EVIL, you're part of the problem." -Chris Matthews

      by malharden on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:05:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wish you'd do (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      foufou

      a response diary with this information and the other items you've brought in.

      It needs to be said.

  •  Yes indeed. As we go into the next election (6+ / 0-)

    cycle, we must use this forum to make it clear that our candidate for president simply isn't doing enough, isn't effective enough, hadn't accomplished enough to garner the support of his own base because THAT litany of failures is how we'll get him re-elected.

    Yaaaaaay!  

    Chumps.

    Best. President. Ever.

    by Little Lulu on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:46:01 AM PDT

    •  the point of getting our guy elected is to (6+ / 0-)

      get things done that we want to get done.

      What's the point in electing someone who DOESN'T get things done that we want to get done?  How does that help us?

      Or would you be happy with electing a horse as long as he has a D after his name . . . .

    •  Well, many here WANT Obama to lose the next (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zizi, Jeff Simpson, foufou, citizen k

      election.  There's no doubt in my mind about that.  Not the necessarily the diarist herself, but there are commenters in this very diary and more elsewhere on thsi site that are hoping, rooting, wishing, and even praying (those that aren't proud atheists) for Obama to lose - just for spite's sake and for hate's sake.

      And given that they want Obama to lose, then it's not surprising that they'd belittle every accomplishment into meaningless tripe or "shit sandwiches".  But these folks are useless as far as elections go anyway.  When President Obama is reelected, teabaggers aren't the only ones whose faces I'm going to rub that into.

      I don't think that the diarist is one of those rooting for the President to lose, but she constantly helps in their cause by doing her "professional left"* bit of belittling every accomplishment into nothingness in some misguided belief that it shows her as sophisticated and/or is a help to the cause in question for a given diary.

      * I use the term "professional left", but I don't know if the diarist is paid for her punditry/analysis; but she acts like one of the "professional left" club, so I use the term in that sense.

      •  nonsense. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kerplunk, pot

        Nobody here wants the Repugs to win.  Nobody.  N-O-B-O-D-Y.  Nobody.

        You are blithering.

        •  Can you read? (5+ / 0-)

          I said that there are those here that want Obama to lose; that's different than wanting Repubs to win.  They don't want Repubs to win, but they'd accept that as a necessary evil side effect of Obama losing.  Of course their joy at Obama's loss would last only for about a month, then it would begin to sink in how horrible that scenario would be.

          There were "true progressives" that openly rooted for Scott Brown to win, and they took joy in his win for about a week.  There were "true progs" that took joy in the Repubs winning the House in 2010; the joy lasted about a week.  There were Naderists that took joy in Gore losing.  Their joy lasted about six months (though some still take perverse pride in denying Gore the WH).

      •  More made up bullshit from an Obamacrat. eom (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kerplunk

        Democrats who enable implementation of Republican policies do more to destroy the Democratic Party than anyone. - Big River Bandido

        by pot on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 01:13:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  A good piece, KJG, though I could do without the (10+ / 0-)

    subtle suggestion that Obama is failing his daughters.  Sadly, today's fp seems to be turning into Celebrate the Ways Obama has Failed Us Day.  All the numerous caveats "it's true that...." phrases I see in both your pieces, are quickly brushed aside as not really counting.  Both pieces seem to denigrate the President's motives as cynical and possibly dishonest.  And this depresses me. especially in the face of the true cynicism and dishonesty we see coming from the other side.

    Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

    by SottoVoce on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:46:59 AM PDT

  •  I don't get this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    randomfacts, tb mare, PAbluestater
    I saw how Michelle was made to balance work and family when she was a vice president at a hospital.

    Why, in a two working parent household, with the male being such a staunch defender of women's rights, does it sound like the woman was the only one that had to balance work and family?

    POTUS might have a basic failure to understand what a woman's "place" is or isn't as far as rights go. That failure would definitely make him feel like he had accomplished something great in putting his sig on the LL act.

    I expect he will evolve eventually. Michelle seems like someone who could force that issue on him as soon as she figures it out herself.

    Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act. - Al Gore

    by Burned on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:47:23 AM PDT

    •  I had the same reaction to his comment. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Burned, PAbluestater, schnecke21

      Um ... why was SHE 'made to balance work and family'?  Shouldn't it have been WE who were 'made to balance work and family'?  His phrasing struck me as a tell.

      •  The Obamas have talked at length about (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elfling, Jeff Simpson, foufou

        their parenting and jobs.  Michelle has been quite honest about her husband's support and sometimes lack of support in parenting.   The reality is that women are the ones who face taking long periods of time off to have children.  Employers are sometimes reluctant to hire and promote women who might be planning a family, because of this time off.  

        It is one thing, as this diary does, to say that our president has not emphasized women's issues enough in his presidency.  But, to say that he does not even believe that women are equal is really beyond understanding.  WTF?

        •  Its interesting... (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elfling, eXtina, zizi, Jeff Simpson, foufou

          these folks who are always screaming about the fact that Obama should use the bully pulpit more often are usually the very ones who demonstrate that they don't listen to him when he does.

          I've heard President Obama talk about his failures in being there as a parent early on. He's been very open about the fact that he had to learn how to share those responsibilities - and his gratitude to Michelle for helping him learn.

          •  I have never screamed about the bully pulpit (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tb mare

            and I'm not screaming now. I will be using a little bold though. :)

            It's just interesting to me that he said "I saw how Michelle was MADE to balance work and family" and shows that he's still got a ways to go. Just like most men with families.
            Michelle was not made to carry that load by some outside force, she was given it by her husband.

            Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act. - Al Gore

            by Burned on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:48:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I really think all it shows is that when he (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cryptodira, foufou

              Was talking about supporting women he used his wife as an example.  Just because he said Michelle has balanced work and family doesn't mean that he didn't balance as well.  He was speaking about women and talked about Michele.  

  •  Obama has fought for nothing (6+ / 0-)

    He plucks the lowest-hanging fruit and calls it "reform", but otherwise has just perpetuated and strengthened the status quo. And even then, by "plucking" I mean takes credit for others' hard work and sacrifice. Ledbetter was Pelosi's doing, not Obama's. He just signed the bill and make a nice speech.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:47:38 AM PDT

  •  LOL now it's Lily Ledbetter (10+ / 0-)

    gee your PL folks are getting more and more desparate. By the time 2012 rolls around you will be denouncing Obama for being Tall.

    "This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding" - President Barack Obama

    by AAMOM on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:48:42 AM PDT

  •  So in short, you want to him to speechify ? (7+ / 0-)

    One bitter fact is two bit hacks populate the third rate fourth estate who are truly the fifth columnists. So, how did Obama piss you off today ?
    Call the media when they Lie

    by amk for obama on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:52:02 AM PDT

  •  ..that picture (0+ / 0-)

    Is horrific. I mean, first of all, shame on democrats for posting it. Its like the mccain hugging bush one..amusing, but below us.

    But for my real complaint...Does anyone else notice that single white pixel? In her eye? Its like its burning into my soul. Whenever i see this woman all i will ever be able to see is that one white pixel..always there..

    ..Always mocking me

    Little boys shouldn't summon up the forces of eternal darkness unless they have an adult supervising. I know, I know. Normally, you need a witches coven, or a mages guild, or at least matching pillow case and sheets to invoke a prince of Oblivion.

    by kamrom on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:52:24 AM PDT

  •  Ungenerous (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    malharden, eXtina

    Yes, it is not what people made it out to be, but it is something, and not unimportant.

    That said, the silliness of it "goes beyond politics" bothers me.

    Does it matter? If it did not, would a politician act differently? No, a thousand times no.

  •  The elitists (5+ / 0-)

    the ruling class, the rich, those with power  do not seem capable of comprehending equal rights for anyone who is not 'competitive' or is not in the ownership soceity. Obama talks about his grandmother not being able to become president of a bank, hitting the glass ceiling, or his wife's hardship at balancing being a VP at a hospital with her family.

    This comes from a whole different perspective then the concept of equal pay or even fair pay. Winning the race to the top is not equality and most people's version of the American Dream is not breaking glass corporate ceilings. At this point it's being able to live decently and provide for the basic's that we all need and should be able to afford. Without equality and common good democracy does not exist.

    As for women's reproductive right's I can't even begin to comprehend why the Democratic party has allowed the religious right to take us back to an era that women struggled hard to overcome. Then again ask myself why did they allow Hyde or DOMA to pass or why the ERA amendment has never passed.

    We are not supposed to be governed  by public opinion of mass deception and ass backward electoral politics  but by democratic principles and the rule of law. We are now supposed to believe that Ignorance is Strength and War is Peace.  Our rights and equality are no longer inalienable truths instead they are held hostage and used as chips to bargain in their political kabuki.      

  •  I think it would be worthwhile to note (9+ / 0-)

    that the biggest thing that Obama has done to preserve women's rights is appointing 2 women supreme court justices.  Additionally, while he many not have specifically pushed for the ERA, that doesn't mean he has been silent on women's issues in general.  He has pushed for increases to Title X funding, against a very hostile GOP house.  He has included several things in the ACA that will benefit women in general, such as requiring insurance to cover mammagrams etc.  He also lifted the Global Gag rule that prevented American supported NGOs from counseling women on abortion issues.  

    I do see your point, and I too am disgusted by the recent erosion of reproductive rights in this country.  I see the results of these policies every day, and it isn't pretty. We need to work hard at fielding and supporting progressive candidates at all levels of government.

    It is easy to get disgusted when we see the WH playing politics with issues that are important.  Happens to me all the time.  But, we also need to remember that politics is an important and very necessary part of the whole presidency.  It sucks, but it is reality. It is a balancing act, to get the policy/politics mix correct, but the current environment demands that Obama be very carefult about the political impact of everything that he does.  

  •  I don't understand. This is right in the article: (14+ / 0-)
    As I said yesterday, ending pay discrimination is a key priority for the President, and that is why signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was one of his first acts.  It is also why he continues to call for new legislation.  In particular, the President has called for Congress to enact the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, as you may remember, the House passed over two years ago but the Senate did not, coming only two votes short of cloture.

    Senate failed to pass a paycheck fairness act, which the President asked them to pass.

    Why isn't the author of this article railing against the Senate instead of belittling the Ledbetter Act and ignoring Supreme Court Justices, etc.?

    LOL @ this agenda.  

    Many of today's "progressives" wouldn't have lasted in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s. Two years in and their thrill is all gone. Poor things.

    by PoliticalJunkessa on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:14:52 AM PDT

    •  you're kidding, right . . . ? (0+ / 0-)
      Why isn't the author of this article railing against the Senate

      You must be new here.

      Of course, every time someone DOES rail against the sellout Dems in the Senate, we get treated to a whole chorus of "Purist !!!!!!!!! We have to reelect them because the Repugs will end the whole world !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" from the Blue Pennant Wavers.  Four legs good, two legs bad.

      (sigh)

      •  Very NOT new here, and I'm simply (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jeff Simpson, foufou

        dissecting the author's own words.

        In THIS article.  She is the one who is ignoring the fact that the President wanted a fair payment act to pass the Senate.  She is the one who is poo-pooing the fact that it didn't pass due to the FAILURE of the  SENATE to pass it.  She is the one who is then taking 1 + 1 and having it equal 3 (it's still Obama's fault).

        This is absolutely ridiculous, and really the sign of a poor thinking process.  Or a choice to push an agenda no matter what.

        Many of today's "progressives" wouldn't have lasted in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s. Two years in and their thrill is all gone. Poor things.

        by PoliticalJunkessa on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:21:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Okay........... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Susan G in MN, arizonablue, moonpal

    Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

    by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:16:45 AM PDT

  •  Obama and women's rights (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, but the greater need was to defeat the "evil" Hillary, not expand women's equality.
    Obama would rather make speeches than do the heavy lifting of doing something substantive.
    Anyone who looked at his record before he became president would have seen this. I would rather have nominated a candidate who has MADE change as opposed to someone who just HOPED for change.

    •  Maybe it would be a good idea if you (5+ / 0-)

      moved past the election.  We are in 2011, not 2008.  Obama won, Hillary lost.  Obama won, McCain lost.  There is nothing anyone can do to change those facts.  

      Also, to say that Obama doesn't do any heavy lifting is ridiculous.  His record as a senator says otherwise.  He many be doing everything you want him to do, and may be doing some things that you don't like.  Saying he doesn't do anything substantive is demonstrably untrue.  

  •  DK's looong descent into ODR (9+ / 0-)

    ODR, or Obama Derangement Syndrome, manifests itself on the Right where everything Obama does is Socialist & Kenyan. On the Left, everything he does is worse than Bush and not enough.

    DK has spent hours whacking Obama over HCR, Gitmo, AfPak, even saying that he doesn't pardon enough criminals!!

    But now Lily Ledbetter? I mean, REALLY? The Dems have been pushing this TOGETHER, even when Obama was in the Senate.

    It was a HUGE victory for them to pass this after Bush left office.

    And you REALLY have to spend this kind of effort NAILING Obama for simply stating that this is a promise kept and a GOOD thing?

    Sheesh ... You REALLY expect politicians to want to work on your issues if all you ever do is say "not good enough"?

    Ungrateful is the best way to describe DK.

    •  Exactly; "positive reinforcement" is a foreign (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OrganizedCrime, zizi, FiredUpInCA, foufou

      concept to these folks.  They got "negative reinforcement" down pat, but if you're all about "negative" and never "positive" reinforcement, then you MIGHT get someone to do your bidding, but they'll hate you in the process and not put much effort into it.

      Bosses, parents, dog trainers, etc, that use only "negative reinforcement" end up with poor workers, bitter children, and viscious dogs, etc.  THe concept applies to any other human relationship.  And in politics, if a group of people trash a politician every time he/she does something that adances their agenda, then that politician will eventually tune that group of people out as impossible to please.

  •  This is almost as embarrassing as... (10+ / 0-)

    the interview Ms. Gray did at Netroots. Smug, condescending and amateurish.

    The Kaili Joy Gray money quote "What's in it for us?"

    It's nice to be nice to the nice. - Frank Burns, MASH

    by dnicely on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:31:06 AM PDT

  •  What a load of crap this statement is.. (16+ / 0-)
    Yet that bill, the first bill he signed as president, is the only significant evidence of the president's commitment to women's equality.

    For starters, lets just think about a few names:

    Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Susan Rice, Lisa Jackson, Valerie Jarrett, Hilda Solis, Kathleen Sebilius, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. And that's just the very top level names.

    Secondly, did you miss the part where the administration was willing to let the government shut down to protect funding for Planned Parenthood. Or that they have effectively stopped the de-funding of same in Indiana.

    Its possible to make good arguments for the idea that there's more to be done. But that one statement reflects your total inability to think reasonably about what is happening.

    One more thing, as a feminist who happens to embrace Juliet Ward Howe's Mother's Day Proclamation, I find your need to promote the patriarchal idea of a "war on women" to be offensive.

    •  Thanks for reminding of the Indiana (6+ / 0-)

      Planned Parenthood issue.

      I think this Front-Pager simply had a meme to push and didn't have the ability, or desire to properly research anything that didn't jibe with her agenda.

      Many of today's "progressives" wouldn't have lasted in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s. Two years in and their thrill is all gone. Poor things.

      by PoliticalJunkessa on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:16:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I guess the NN interview and subsequent (4+ / 0-)

        posting wasn't enough opportunity to remind us 'again and again and again' that this is Obama's only accomplishment on women's rights and she is sick of hearing about it.

        "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

        by eXtina on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:19:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't have a problem with President Obama (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou

          reminding people what he did it as many times as he can. My problem is Democrats haven't gotten the proper amount of media attention to brag more about what they have or tried to do. People complain about that, but some in the next breath, complain about the president reminding us of it. Sh*t i think they should do it a lot more. Oh, "i am tired of hearing it". Now how does that hurt your feelings? Oh, how about those two women he put on the freaking supreme court? Don't you think they will more than likely rule the correct way on women issues? Some of you people make me sick with your shallow thought processes.

  •  Okayyyyy....... (12+ / 0-)
    Meanwhile, more than a thousand bills restricting women's health care, privacy, security, and yes, even equal pay, have been introduced throughout the country. Several have been introduced and passed in the House.

    They have not passed in the Senate, and in a few instances, the president has threatened to veto those that make it to his desk. (None have.) But rather than address the attacks head on, rather than articulate to the country exactly why and how these bills and attacks would be disastrous for women, we are reminded instead of his devotion to women's equality because the first bill he signed as president was the Lilly Ledbetter Act.

    Okay.....so....I thought standard used to be that the President should threaten to veto any onerous bills.  Now that he threatens to veto any onerous women-hating bills, the standard is now that he hasn't said enough.

    I mean, this is right here in the author's words.  

    Massive logic fail.

    It's obvious the author simply wanted to place the blame for the horrendous legal activity initiated and carried out by Republican governors and Republican STATE legislatures at the feet of the President.

    That's the easier and lazier thing to do.  And it certainly doesn't require the courage that going directly after those responsible (and the complicit apathy on the part of women) does.

    Many of today's "progressives" wouldn't have lasted in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s. Two years in and their thrill is all gone. Poor things.

    by PoliticalJunkessa on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:33:32 AM PDT

  •  and Extend Equal Pay to those Careers/Professions (0+ / 0-)

    that are typically female populated - like Child Care, Care-giver, Social Work, Social Services, Nursing Home Care, Nursing, Therapy, and yes Teaching too. Funny how I know that a male teacher got offered a higher start pay than a female - they claimed "different experience."

    I am now working in a Social Services profession with the Developmentally Disabled -- and it is extremely LOW PAY -- for the amount of work involved. It is a 99% female profession and under-appreciated.

    The fact that most of the work is funded by Public Welfare taxpayer dollars is an added insult to the low appreciation, low pay of someone caring for the Disabled.  

    President Obama - will you ever send some Corrupt Wall Street Banksters to PRISON where they belong?

    by PAbluestater on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:39:43 AM PDT

  •  Complain or act? (5+ / 0-)

    If you are truly a progressive "activist", then why do you just yell at the WH for not doing your work for you?

    Progressives have been out hustled by the Tea Party for 2 years now.

    Somehow, they've learned how to get more attention from the media than an Obama "bully pulpit".

    Remember, the MSM just turns Obama out. Fox News doesn't even always carry his speeches.

    The media will just again say that Obama is "over-exposed" or "not saying anything new".

    Activism is supposed to be YOUR job, not his.

    Unlike Bush, he'll actually SIGN the legislation, which is what president do.

  •  Fix this, Kalli! Stop reiterating Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    royce

    compromise and collaboration, his devil's bargains.

    There is hope, but only if you bust the bubble and myth of Christian conservatism - Bachmann's political movement comprised of teanaggers, anarchists, libertarians, xenophobes, racists, Republican independent base voters, ultra right-wing extremists, neoconservatives, Obama bashers and supporters of faith-based initiatives - there is no Christianity in Christian conservatism!

    There is only anti-Democratic politics in it!

    Where is our coalition? How is it that there are so many lies that bind their coalitions when we have truth, fairness, justice and great democratic freedoms and principles on our side?

    How is it that a Republican woman explained to me that she believes Obamacare will make it impossible for a woman with the wrong genetics to carry a fetus to term, thereby almost requiring an abortion?

    Therefore, she says, "Democrats are for abortion. Obamacare is the devil's mission incarnate." She gets that from Michele Bachmann.

    What do you say to that wingnuttery? What do you say to Democratic Party strategists who think this is the way to victory for Democrats in 2012?

    •  Power concedes nothing without a demand. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      royce
      "Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters."

      "This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North, and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages, and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others." -Frederick Douglass

  •  You lost me with the "again and again" snark (15+ / 0-)

    in your second sentence :P

    I mean, I don't get it - the "professional" left is forever saying that Obama is the Worst.President.Ever for not using that handy-dandy "bully pulpit" you think every oval office comes equipped with.  So when he does promote his accomplishments, this is the thanks he gets????

    And I remember your comment last night, Ms. Gray, on the thread about the re-introduction of the ERA. First thing you wrote about it was yet another way to damn Obama with excessively faint praise. Honestly, if that's the first thought that pops into your mind on this positive bit of news, then I'd say you're the one with the problem!

    You've lost me forever, Ms. Gray. You may be a great and high-mojo FP writer, and I may be a lowly lurker worm, but imo you represent everything that's wrong with the ineffectual left!

    The price of apathy toward public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. ~ Plato

    by jan4insight on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:44:07 AM PDT

  •  Not nuts about the use of "war on women" myself (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elfling

    It seems to diminish the word "war" and no hyperbole is needed to see sexism. It's pure and ugly male-domination, old fashioned paternalism, simple unmistakable sexism - things independent Democratic, Republican, and Independent female voters have coalesced around for generations.

    As for Lily Ledbetter, it was one of those "no brainer' sigs for a Democratic President.  No matter how limited its application, it's important and what Democrat would not have closed that loophole and signed the legislation?  

    The mention of Ledbetter as an Obama Accomplishment has become a key harbinger for me though. It signals that I need not take the speakers words to heart. The marketing hype is insulting in its transparency.

    And that transparent hype brings me back to the nonpartisan nature of female voters on female issues. 2012 will be an election with great consequence wrt the Congressional majority. There should not be the slightest risk of dismaying women voters in any way, especially those loosley coupled ones in the "other parties". Coattails and coalitions and every single vote is needed. Americans are not stupid and hyped up accomplishments are.

    Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

    by kck on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:50:59 AM PDT

  •  T & Red!! Thank you for this pro-woman diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sydserious, Pandoras Box, Ginger1

    There is a an all out assault on women right now in this country. Between abortion, medical care, equal pay, healthcare for children, education for children, SS/Medicare. These are issues which affect women in a major way all through their lives.

    We are 50% of the population. You can only keep us desperate/poverty stricken/pregnant/and under-educated for so long b4 it's going to adversely affect the entire country.

    Welcome American Taliban. So why is Obama fighting the Taliban overseas and not the American Taliban here at home?

    I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson

    by Lucy2009 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:57:06 AM PDT

  •  Forget about striking out, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kerplunk

    our Mighty Casey doesn't even swing. He hopes to walk, or lean in hoping to get hit by a pitch.

    Classic Obama. A compromise that pleases nobody yet leaves the status quo unchanged. What leadership.

  •  Thanks for reminding us again (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Susan G in MN, foufou

    because I almost forgot

    as president. And since then, we have been reminded, by the president, his wife, and members of his administration, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again, that he did.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:09:54 PM PDT

  •  Nobody is entitled to Kudos or praise (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    randomfacts

    over the Lilly Ledbetter act. It was a judicial override bill. Such bills are generally as much or more about Congressional power as about the ostensible subject matter.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:27:59 PM PDT

  •  This is not a well-reasoned article. (8+ / 0-)

    The problem with Angry Mouse's post is that she fails to point to any plausible action that the President should have taken that would actually improve the lives of women.

    This lengthy post boils down to two criticisms:

    1. The president hasn't fought hard enough to make abortions affordable for poor women.

    2. The president hasn't fought hard enough to get the ERA passed.

    With respect to the first criticism, President Obama has not fought the Hyde Amendment and did not fight against the Stupak amendment to the Affordable Care Act for a very simple reason: making a big fight out of either of those issues would have resulted in gridlock which would have resulted in poor people of both genders having less access to affordable healthcare.

    With respect to the second issue: an amendment to the constitution requires passage by two-thirds of both houses of congress and ratification by 38 States.  Does that seem like something that has any chance of happening right now?  

    As far as the criticism of the Lilly Ledbetter Act goes, Angry Mouse is correct that it does not create a substantive right.  What she fails to mention is that the substantive right was created in the 1960's by the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which states:

    It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

    (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

    (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

    That is a strong, substantive, right that women can enforce if they are discriminated against at the work place.  What Lilly Ledbetter does is knock down a procedural hurdle erected by the Supreme Court that prevented a number of women from enforcing that statutory right in a lawsuit.

    "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

    by seanwright on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:55:35 PM PDT

    •  a correction: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina
      With respect to the first criticism, President Obama has not fought the Hyde Amendment and did not fight against the Stupak amendment to the Affordable Care Act for a very simple reason: making a big fight out of either of those issues would have resulted in gridlock which would have resulted in poor people of both genders having less access to affordable healthcare.

      First, it was Dems in Congress who tied up the HCR with their idiotic anti-abortion bullshit. So the big fight and deadlock would have been with his very own party. We tend to forget that time after time after time, it is Dems who fuck us over, not Repugs.

      Second, the HCR does not expand access to affordable medical care for anyone, of either gender. It's a welfare program for the insurance industry.

      •  Blue dogs along with republicans, get the sh*t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        seanwright, foufou

        right ok? You are a rightwing troll, i've noticed, there are a few of your trollies hanging around.

        •  BWAAAAA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (0+ / 0-)
          You are a rightwing troll

          THAT is too funny for words.

          By the way, which party do Blue Dogs belong to, again . . . ?

          •  The point is, you're ready to let republicans off (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            foufou

            the hook when they are 100%!united behind an even worse stance on womens reproductive rights.  And your attack on the ACA is nonsense.  The ACA is primarily composed of new regulations and subsidies that overwhelmingly benefit poor and working class people, especially those with preexisting health problems. I seriously doubt you are a right-winger, but those sort of ignorant anti-progress remarks definitely serve the right-wing agenda?

            "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

            by seanwright on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:52:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you are quite wrong. (0+ / 0-)

              Let the Repugs off the hook?  Surely you jest. I'd prefer to hang them all from lampposts.

              And the ACA doesn't help any low-income people.  The subsidies that it gives for the (Republican-proposed and industry-written) mandated insurance will only pay for shitty high-deductable policies that won't let low-income people see a doctor when they need to because they can't afford the deductible. (Don't beleive me?  Then go to any of the several dozen "calculators" online and find out what the subsidy is for an income of, say, $18k or $22 k--then take that amount to any health insurer's website and see what you can buy with it.)

              The pre-existing conditions and keeping young people on the policies are good things---too bad they come unnecessarily embedded in the big mandate shit-muffin.

              As for the "rightwinger" idiocy----click on the link in my sig.

  •  To Me, Obama Running His 2012 (0+ / 0-)

    re-election campaign on the basis of Lily Ledbetter is foolish.  

    But foolish seems to be the trend.

    Hope it drums up some support, but I don't think it will.

    I don't know upon what basis the Obama Re-election Campaign thinks the Lily Ledbetter mantra will carry the 2012 re-election for him.

    I hope the campaign is ready with their trusty phrase "who could have known?".

    To me, the mention of Lily Ledbetter doesn't generate thoughts of "women's rights".  It instead generates thoughts of how little the Obama Administration has actually done for regular folks of America.

    In other words the mere mention of Lily Ledbetter means "I was so busy pandering and enabling the Republican Agenda, I was only able to pass a mediocre bill early in my Administration that I can use as my flagship that I'm interested in Democratic Party principles and values and am counting on it to draw support for my 2012 reelection".

    That idea is sad and pathetic.

    •  WHo the f**k said it would be the only issue he (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jeff Simpson, Hope08, foufou

      runs on or expect to carry the 2012 election? He did it dammit. Can you name another who did? Run on it and other things you have accomplished Obama and f**k all these little whining people who cherry pick every issue when other administration didn't touch. Now how about all those women in the Obama administration and the two he put on the freaking supreme court who more than likely be fair when hearing and rulings on women issues.

  •  It was already against the law to discriminate. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeff Simpson, foufou

    the problem at hand was whether certain cases were past the statue of limitation. What was he suppose to do, when it was already discriminatory? Now most of those cases can proceed. Some people find all kind of stuff to discredit this president. When before him, hardly any of the things he's done were barely mentioned under other administrations. In other words they wouldn't have gotten sh*t! That also goes for gay issues.

  •  The Dems and the president should say it (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, dnicely, Jeff Simpson, foufou

    again again again again again again.... because they don't get many chances to say it in the national media, who by the way, ignore or under report Democrats and Obama's accomplishments. Like they failed to report why all those freaking bills the Dem house passed because the republicans filibustered all of them. When a stinky republican says Obama hasn't done this and hasn't done that. the reporter never ask them, isn't that because you republicans made history making filibusters to stop him? So state everything you do, again, again again again....every chance you get.

  •  This is a buuuuuulshit diary (6+ / 0-)
  •  GTFO! now the president can't even tout his own (9+ / 0-)

    accomplishments??  this is ridiculous, on its face.

    "Wake the town and tell the people!" ~Ewart Beckford, O.D.

    by mallyroyal on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 04:06:48 PM PDT

  •  Cares. Is concerned. (0+ / 0-)

    Congratulation, lady Kossacks.  Now you all know how the Lesbians among you feel about this president, which is exactly how this gay man feels.  Canaries in the coal mine, we are.

    All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 04:07:25 PM PDT

  •  A totally dishonest diary!!!! (7+ / 0-)

    Look if this is the kind of tripe that gets you paid then honestly say so. To completely lie in this feverish manner is shameful.

    Yeah this President prepared just a few weeks ago to let the Repugs shut the government down because he was NOT goig to let them defund Planed Parenthood means nothing to you purist!!

    This president appointing two women to the supreme court is nothing to you purist!!!

    Lilly ledbetter means nothing to you purist!!!

    The HCR law that you poo pooed is the same one that several women's groups came out to support its passage because it is the majority of women, particularly poor women, who have been adversely affected by lack of access to healthcare, who comprise the 30 million who got coverage because of the ACA.
    Your rant betrays the lack of concern you have for poor women.

    Exactly what have you personally done on the streets to help actual women save ranting on a blog that that does NOT reflect a cross section of America?

    But of course it is easier to get paid to bash President Obama while mouthing caveats about what he has accomplished

    utter NONSENSE!!! Good luck getting any traction for women's rights with Republicans controlling all power!!!

    Of course if that is what you really care about.

    "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them." -- Pres. Obama (1/20/2009)

    by zizi on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 04:42:13 PM PDT

  •  You repeat yourself (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hope08, foufou

    and are in danger of becoming a stereotype

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:05:00 PM PDT

  •  I wonder if Lilly Ledbetter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foufou

    thought it was a big deal (actually a big fucking deal)?

    In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. ~ Mencken

    by royce on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:30:42 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site