Obama Hit Pieces

[vaberella]

I'm getting a bit tired of all these different hit pieces. That seem to come one after the other without a moment of peace. Obama has from what I can see, done amazing things for women and their rights. Obama is the one person who has consistently been reported in the past as listening to all the voices at his table who include a good number of women and making a decision. This has never been denied, until now. Actually while many people were screaming he's weak, he's wavering, others have said he's taking into consideration all the voices and ideas at his table in the situation room which include men and WOMEN.

To see this sort of book coming out, of this nature, seems to be false in the face of the amount of action on his part; and to see so many people seeming to agree with it despite the fact that Obama has put in 2 female supreme court judges, has a female SOS, has close female advisers and even moved up others in higher statuses-when their male counterparts have left those posts. When you're looking at Sebelius, Warren, HRC, Nappalitano, Pelosi, and Valerie Jarret (who are always around the President)...and the way they have helped shape and push the President's agenda would say he's far from marginalizing women. I know there have been posts in the past who have stated Pelosi was ignored---and then the facts have come to light that when one isn't House Speaker, one loses a great deal of leverage at the playing table.

While Obama is seen as a person who ignores women despite all he's done for women's rights and given women positions to really shine and make their mark (positions where women have Historically NEVER HELD BEFORE)----Warren being a great example of this. We get this sort of book. Don't get me wrong--I can see a few men in the administration definitely having that "good old boy" personality and ramrodding their way through the women, but I also believe the women in the administration are strong enough to hold their own and have these men back off. I sincerely doubt the President wouldn't appreciate the work of the women around him.

This too me works in the way President Clinton was seen as a womanizer and just objectifying women while in the Presidency. Obama seems to be marginalizing them to display dolls without power. And I have seen this sort of talk on many Liberal boards in the past, especially about Warren who pushed back strongly against those statements.

I don't care about the political affiliation of the writer. Many writers have their own agendas. But when I look at laws like Lily Ledbetter, bills to protect the rights of Native American women from domestic violence and rape, strong support of the rights of women in HRC, but also enforcing that ALL insurance companies should cover birth control. A man who has a wife and two daughters who was systematically raised by his grandmother and mother who were primaries in his life and has a younger sister and basically women dominating his adolescent years, adult years and working years (since Pelosi was said to be a strong guiding force for the junior politician Obama) is not a man who would ignore women in his administration. I'm sincerely sorry---and I may be called an Obama cheerleader and whatever the fuck---but I call it BS. This is something I find utterly utterly false.

I have read statements saying pictures were evidence. If I go to pictures to big events, women are always in them. 2 or more. And if it's high operation missions---HRC is sitting right next to the President. I think when people are quick to believe everything thy read, even if some people who state they felt marginalized, is not a referendum on the entire administration of women in the Obama administration. There are a lot of players at the table and a lot of voices. I'm a bit disgusted.

I find this just like a Bill Clinton situation and plays into the hand of a lot of Pumas to be honest. Carville will love this. Then we'll see many Repubs eating this. Bush who barely had women around him---it seemed at times that Condilezza Rice was the only woman that existed for some reason never got a hit piece like this. But Obama who's had significantly done so much for women and has STRONG women players has this sort of book. It makes no goddamn sense to me.


I'm just disgusted but I guess this is expected---especially in light of the 2012 election.

[xchrom]

1. I'm tired of 'liberals' justifying neo-liberal politics & feigning

Outrage when called on it.

[vaberella]

2. Who's justifying anything in my post. I'm a Womanist...

I don't defend or justify marginalization of women. And I don't see the marginalization of women as neo-liberal politics. That has been around for centuries in this country and all across the world when it comes to patriarchal perverse societies---particularly those of a judeo-christian background. It's almost a mainstay. Or maybe I don't understand your point.

[FrenchieCat]

25. The "men" in this thread have spoken. I guess us women can just STFU!

:eyes:

[Pab Sungenis]

3. I wish I could Rec a reply.

[ProSense]

4. Well,

"I'm tired of 'liberals' justifying neo-liberal politics & feigning"

...I'm tired of people using words they don't understand.

What the hell does "neo-liberal politics" have to do with hit pieces, specifically a piece distorting the role of women in the administration?

[Bobbie Jo]

6. I wish I could REC a reply.

:applause:

Big REC to the OP as well. :kick:

[Number23]

10. Oh shit!

I'm tired of people using words they don't understand.

Owww!! My sides!! Owwwww!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[girl gone mad]

14. Yet, it is you who fails to understand.

You could take just a few minutes to contemplate the horrendous effects that neoliberal policies have had on women and on women's rights here and around the world.

Obviously, women in Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered greatly:

http://www.solidarity-us.org/current/node/428

For proponents of the benevolent U.S. empire, or of the neoliberal world economic order in general, the natural connection of American power with human progress is taken as given. Promoting free markets and privatization, and American-style models of political democracy and individual rights, automatically builds prosperity and brings improvements in the lives and conditions of women.

The only problem with this postulate is the terrifying divorce between ideology and reality. The truth is that the neoliberal world order kills, just as surely as do the helicopter gunships that enforce it – and women are foremost among the victims.

The fact of the matter is that war and the insecurity it fuels increases violence against women and reinforces the exploitation of women and girls. Although it is impossible to get an accurate picture of how women are coping with everyday life under the U.S.-appointed Interim Governing Council (IGC), it is clear that the possibility of rape and abduction has decreased women's ability to leave home without male accompaniment.

Neoliberalism was a huge setback for women in Mexico, too:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2692106

Thankfully, women around the world are fighting back.

http://www.ebangladesh.com/2010/10/07/feminist-responses-towards-fundamentalisms-and-neo-liberal-economy-2

Feminists will try to fight for national causes as well as international women issues. Solidarity amongst women and activism may help promoting social rights, conflict prevention and economic justice as well as fight fundamentalism. So networking among similar organisations is important, also important is to engage in dialogues with conflicting ideologies. Feminisms must not be ghettoised among women only, men should be in too and will fight together against fundamentalisms and neo-liberal policies. Combating neo-liberal policies is one of the most important political and philosophical debates of the present-day world economic and political systems. This should be addressed politically and philosophically. Networking of all concerned people is therefore essential, and feminists need to be at the front fighters’ position to ensure their right in this complex struggle. New social technology can be used for this networking. Ensuring a social control of all people in worlds’ resources and possibilities is a huge struggle.

more: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2011/20110928t1830vOT.aspx

Unfortunately, the neoliberal policies Obama aggressively embraces HURT WOMEN.

[vaberella]

18. Are you female? If you are...you would understand misogyny goes far beyond neo-liberal policies.

Actually it was going on in any patriarchal society. Neo-liberalism reached it's height or era of origin in the late 70s/80s. Policies have been hurting women long before that. And as I said in my post---which I listed and no one can deny Obama has done many things to counter policies that hurt women and put in place policies to protect women. So to say Obama is embracing neo-liberal policies, as though it is the only thing that has hurt women is absurd. I didn't realize Lily Ledbeter Act was him embracing neo-liberal policies. I didn't realize appointing the first Hispanic supreme court justice was him embracing neo-liberal policies. I didn't realize him having a woman SOS was him embracing neo-liberal policies. I didn't realize Obama appointing Susan B. Carbon to the DOJ's office on Violence Against Women was him embracing neo-liberal policies. Obama signing a new Tribal Law and Order Act which protects the rights of Native American women after rape domestic violence and balances out the tribal laws and federal laws, as well as provides substantial aid for Indian Health Services in times of crises---is him embracing neo-liberal policies. I think if Ms. Ta Wacinya Waste Win read what you said, she'd probably spit on you, especially after this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4K1UYCC0dQ; because, as obviously apparent in the video, to her--this was not a man who is or was embracing neo-liberal policies that will help to protect others who may be in a similar situation. It's protecting women, and women like herself. Once again...I think his actions have shown that he's far from a misogynist and he's not a man who "embraces neo-liberal policies." He's actually trying to and has accomplished great changes on behalf of women. And the mere fact he's even called a misogynist, even if implied indirectly, is insulting to a Womanist like myself.

I find your post disgustingly ill-informed.

[girl gone mad]

24. Compare these token acts..

to the act of giving Wall Street trillions in bailouts, much of which was promptly used to speculate in commodities markets, running up the price of things like wheat and oil and bringing misery to billions of women across the globe.

Extending and expanding the wars resulted in the deaths of many women and girls and the continuation of misery for the rest.

Carrying out the failed globalist trade policies has cost millions of women in this country their livelihood, and worsened conditions for women workers around the world. Now he wants more of these trade deals.

Refusing to listen to progressive economists and expand the deficit to put people back to work means that our unemployed will continue to struggle, and women are being hit especially hard by the joblessness.

Neoliberalism is great for the few women who have done well for themselves within the system, however, it is a disaster for the vast majority of women.

[FrenchieCat]

27. What one man has ever given you your Etopia....?

Who is this person that you compare the President to, in believing that he ever had
the power to turn this government upside down in his short time.

Your endless whining only shows that being unreasonable while wishing for pie in the sky
means you blame us all for even existing. Does this mean you have blood on your hands,
everytime you go to the store? Does this mean that since you are actively working to defeat
this President (it should be clear to all that this is what you do), that when a Republican is
elected, that we can talk about how you had a hand in all that is then done in your name that
you say you despise?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[girl gone mad]

47. Your obsession with spitting on people with whom you disagree..

is churlish and childish.

When you're ready to drop the personal insults, divisive gender-baiting and incessant swearing, Ms. "Womanist", let me know. It's impossible to have a productive conversation on policy so long as you feel the need to resort to such petty tactics.

[vaberella]

51. It might be. When disgusted I react physically. Calling serious policies "token" disgusts me.

Some might find it childish---others might find it deserving. However, I find your statement about massive movements Obama has made for women as "token" to be abhorrent. You called the struggles of thousands of women for years if not decades who fought for those legislations---TOKEN. Why shouldn't I be angry? Why can't I cuss or physically react? Yeah...I swear when I'm pissed---what of it? You pissed me off. To you it's childish---but my anger at such flippancy to important legislation---while you claim you want to discuss policy is just utter astonishment of the gall.

I did not drop personal insults---but I did find your post revolting and not worth even giving any form of consideration, considering the label of very important legislation and actions for women as "token". "Gender-baiting" and "divisive---excuse me? Blaming Neo-liberals for the plight of women is ridiculous---since Neo-Liberalism was not only pioneered by a woman; but also due to the fact women have been fighting subjugation for centuries...CENTURIES not a few measly decades (roughly 30).

When Judeo-Christian values were adopted by many primitive states we can see the first inklings towards the elimination of women's rights being stifled. Chenghis Kahn had a female military---and he would win no prizes for women's rights. Islam gave women the right to vote, own property and land CENTURIES ago. Yet, the Western world was seeing women as either cattle and/or too dumb to think independently. This treatment of women goes far deeper, as part of the social core---and can't be blamed on a form of thinking that happened in the late 20th Century. I relate that to lazy thinking---at leas there are some historians who have connected it properly to feudalism---but really "embracing of neo-liberal" views is the real problem...PLEASE. I would assume more women would be aware of our history of mistreatment---rather than blaming it on the neo-liberals---hence my asking on gender.

As for Womanist---I don't appreciate the disrespect. It it not something you cavalierly toss under "/" facetiously. I think it's difficult to have a productive conversation on anything with someone who calls key policy changes "token." You destroy ANY point you attempted to make or attempt to make, just by those actions alone and yet you don't seem to get it.

[Number23]

30. Wow. Really nice post, Vab!

:thumbsup:

[ProSense]

29. Look

Bill Clinton smacked down James Carville.

"Unfortunately, the neoliberal policies Obama aggressively embraces HURT WOMEN."

What utter drivel!

Advancing Women’s Rights Is Progressive Foreign Policy

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is spearheading a quiet revolution in progressive foreign policy by making the empowerment of women and advancement of their rights a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. While overshadowed by other foreign policy issues—the global financial crisis; wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya; nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea; terrorism; and the Arab Spring to name a few—the Obama administration has embarked on the most concerted effort to advance women’s rights in the history of U.S. foreign policy.

<…>

Action was swift: On his third day in office, President Obama rescinded the “Global Gag Rule” and restored U.S. funding to international family planning organizations that fund abortion. Less than two months later, the Obama administration restored U.S. funding to the U.N. Population Fund after a seven-year hiatus. What’s more, the administration created the Office of Global Women’s Issues in the State Department, reporting directly to Secretary Clinton, and appointed Melanne Verveer as the first ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues.

The administration has incorporated women into its two major development initiatives: the Feed the Future Initiative and the Global Health Initiative. The $3.5 billion Food Security Initiative acknowledges that women produce between 60 percent and 80 percent of the food in developing countries and estimates that providing women with agricultural “inputs” such as land, fertilizer, and seed varieties equal to those of men increases economic output by 10 percent in developing countries. Accordingly, the Feed the Future Initiative will target interventions such as access to financial services, agricultural inputs, and extension services at women, as well as focusing on legal reforms that will allow women farmers to own the land they work.

<…>

The Obama administration has also pledged money to reduce gender-based violence in war, including $17 million to the Democratic Republic of Congo and almost $44 million toward a National Action Plan to implement U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 on the role of women in conflict resolution. Finally, the United States worked toward the creation of a unified U.N. agency—U.N. Women—dedicated to women’s rights and empowerment.

<…>

[girl gone mad]

31. seems "utter drivel" is your default response now.

You toss around figures like $17 million to "reduce gender based violence", as if this money (probably mostly pocketed by people sitting in Washington) will make up for the trillions spent on wars which kill women and girls, the trillions given to Wall Street to gamble on the resources women need to live, the billions in subsidies to corporations which hire women and girls for sweatshop labor in dehumanizing conditions, the trillions in bailouts to banks which continue looting the populace through foreclosure scams and predatory student loans, etc. Sprinkling some pocket change on "worthy causes" doesn't make up for pushing a relentlessly destructive neoliberal agenda on multiple fronts. Not even close.

Obama's economic and military policies have hurt women. You can stick your nose in the air and call it "drivel" since these policies haven't personally impacted you, but you can't actually alter reality for the people who have been impacted.

[ProSense]

46. Well

"Obama's economic and military policies have hurt women. You can stick your nose in the air and call it "drivel" since these policies haven't personally impacted you, but you can't actually alter reality for the people who have been impacted."

....you can pull claims out of thin air, but that doesn't make them facts!

[woo me with science]

54. Superb post. Thank you. nt

[CakeGrrl]

28. It has NOTHING to do with the OP. The poster ignored the premise of the OP

to keep arguing.

The non-stop critics of the President will simply find excuse after excuse to keep pushing their complaints. Once one line of outrage is debunked or proven wrong or is resolved, it's on to the next.

[JuniperLea]

62. Question Perfection!

Too bad we'll never get that answer...

:popcorn:

[Donnachaidh]

5. +100000!

ding! ding! ding!

[Skittles]

8. CORRECT

[readmoreoften]

23. Plus a billion

[YellowCosmicSun]

44. Who made you King of all Liberals, buddy?

[certainot]

55. i'm tired of naive new voters who expected a black man to walk into the white billionaire's house an

and kick ass.

i'm tired of 'liberals' who slept through the bush years because it was distasteful and shitty and then finally come out to vote and have no clue what the GOP has been doing and is capable of.

i'm tired of 'liberals' who get sucked in by trolls and 'liberals' who might as well be trolls whining all politicians are the same and they're not going to vote, just as the GOP desires

i'm tired of 'principled' 'liberals' who make compromises all day in life, then expect obama to never compromise.

i'm tired of 'liberals' who sat on their asses while their local RW limbaugh stations sold club gitmo t-shirts and coffee mugs and then complain about obama not stopping torture that's been going on years, like the torture liberals and dem reps had so much trouble stopping in central america.

i'm tired of idiot 'liberals' who think obama can 'message' over the GOP messaging machine that features 1000 coordinated radio stations that are completely ignored while they take free pot shots at dem and progressive reps and ideas all day long and can create a buzz madison ave would kill for.

[Mr Deltoid]

61. So you are saying that you prefer the right wing over the left wing?

Since you hate 'liberals' so much?

[certainot]

67. where'd i say hate?

i said i was tired of whiny lazy and ignorant ones who sound about ready to give the country over to the corporatists because things didn't go their way right off the bat

[Mr Deltoid]

68. I must have gotten confused by all the name calling, insults and venom

Carry on...

[certainot]

69. i gave a nice listing with specifics and will defend every one, although i might have been a bit

free with the labeling. but considering the stakes of continued ignoring of the right's best weapon while it kicks internet ass.....

[Mr Deltoid]

70. Thanks for clarifying

:-)

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

9. Why are you shouting? What are you even talking about? n/t

[Number23]

11. Girl,

Just move on. Really. That person gets asked "what are you talking about?" more than any other person here. There's never a good answer.

Just move along. Nothing to see there.

Edit: It wasn't me that alerted on it. Somebody else must be as tired of the poorly spelled, upper case idiocy as the rest of us.

[vaberella]

12. Oh, because I didn't report them either.

Alright...the statement went right over my head. Much like the first response on the board. I don't know what neo-liberal views has to do with anything.

[OhioBlue]

13. I agree - the moment I saw the headline

about the book - I called BS as well. I figured it was another case of taking a person's strength, attacking it and trying to turn it into a weakness - much like the swiftboaters did with Kerry. The thought that BHO - who was raised by his mother and grandmother whom he has great affection and admiration for.. who appointed two women to the SC, who married a very strong woman, who surrounds himself with female advisers and appointed HRC to SOS, whose first act as Pres was to pass the Lilly Ledbetter act... to say that he marginalizes female voices... f'in BS! I'm not buying it for a second.

[Whisp]

15. now that Obama can't be a the Homophobe he was called here

next is mysogynist. why not? go down the list!
he's dealt with Terrorist, Muslim, Socialist, Weak, Caver and I'm sure I'm missing some.

Next!
what will it be next?

maybe pedophile? I've heard he masticates in front of his children!

[Solomon]

16. I was just thinking the same thing. I expect a rant from Bo the dog

anyday now about what a dog abuser Obama really is.

[vaberella]

17. So true...Remember PETA was already on his case over the flygate situation. n/t

[treestar]

21. LOL!

[Phx_Dem]

19. BIngo!

[Number23]

39. I really have to agree, Whisp

now that Obama can't be a the Homophobe he was called here next is mysogynist. why not? go down the list!

You are right on the damn money.

Soon, we'll be hearing how he doesn't like black men. Oh, wait... http://newsone.com/entertainment/newsonestaff2/cornel-west-obama-free-black-men/

[JuniperLea]

63. He'll be a racist soon as well...

I expect that one to be saved for the bitter end, however... the bitter end of the stupidity which will coincide with the end of the GOTP... last ditch effort... final grasp of a straw.

[treestar]

20. I agree, this one is really out there

There is always someone out there trying to imply that Obama is not good enough now to those who voted for him, systematically going through each group, be it Hispanics, white voters, African Americans, unions, whoever, is said to be "deserting" him. Now with this one they've reached a ridiculous new low.

Given who his mother was, Obama will never think of women as just objects.

[mtnsnake]

22. Well said. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

26. They will work every and any angle....

It is sad really.

I was over a friends house yesterday, that I hadn't seen in a long time...like years!
There was a framed picture of Pres. Barack Obama on her wall....in the same
way that folks used to have a picture of JFK years ago. I asked her why
she had put this picture in her family room. She said because her daughter who
had just went away to college (Spelman College) and her son currently attending Tuskegee
had both been inspired by this President. She said that before her son had started working on Barack Obama's campaign, he was not doing that well at school. She said that his idols before his
involvement were Video games and some rap star that she named (I wasn't familiar).

She said she is very dismayed on how this President is treated now, and that she doesn't bother to watch the news anymore. She added that she felt that the way that he is unfairly attacked is actually harming million of children (Black Children in particular) who had found true inspiration in this man. It broke my heart to hear her say this, as she is correct, and I agreed, and then we had a long discussion about the media and what it is they are attempting to do.

The point is that when we tear down someone like this President by a thousand cuts
day in, day out, the damage is not localized....instead, it reverberates many times over.

So thank you for calling out the hater who wrote that fucked up book, as well as those
who really haven't ever had anything positive about this President. They know who they are
and they know that they are unreasonable and unfair, but they most likely don't care about
anyone, although they claim to. If they truly cared, they'd be more balanced in their
critiques, but they aren't. Sad, cause they should know better, but perhaps I give people too much benefit of the doubt; something they have yet to give this President.

[Mr Deltoid]

66. Criticizing Obama harms millions of children?

That sounds desperate

[FrenchieCat]

76. When Rick Perry has his foot way deep in your ass,

and is cutting children's health care and food stamps,
you'll remember what I said.

[farmbo]

32. Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood says Obama flat out saved them

Boehner's prime demand during the debt ceiling debate was for the governmet to totally de-fund Planned Parenthood.
Obama stood his ground and they kept their clinic doors open.
As the Obama haters are incessantly pointing out, he did not succeed in imposing a progressive tax policy (yet), but by keeping PP's doors opened he has bolstered the health of women nationwide-- including my daughter.

Credit where credit is due?

[ClassWarrior]

33. Why are you using assassination terminology about the President?

Bad taste. Way bad.

NGU.

[frazzled]

34. This is a standard journalistic term

Definition: an attempt to turn public opinion against someone/something through the appearance of objective reporting or editorializing.


Boy, now not only do our so-called "progressives" pooh-pooh attempts to discuss women's issues by deflecting the conversation to some generalized discussion of "neo-liberalism," a term that dates to the 1970s, but now you must dismiss the OP by trying to find sinister meanings in the use of a common term. It's really a stretch, folks. Keep on tryin', though.

[ClassWarrior]

36. Why take a dig at progressives just because one person raises a question about violent terminology?

I know what it means in terms of journalism, but it's based on slang for assassination. And I think that's in bad taste, and a barrier to discussing whatever salient issues the rest of the post may raise. I said nothing about the content of the post.

:shrug:

NGU.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Any comments on the subject at hand.....

about the book implying that this President is a Chauvinist?
I'd like to hear your take on this SPECIFIC issue.....

Thanks! :hi:

[ClassWarrior]

38. That's ridiculous. I hadn't heard about that. He's hardly a chauvinist.

Who wrote it?

NGU.

[vaberella]

52. If you didn't read it, then why comment on my thread.

This is what this thread is discussing. Suskind's new book on Obama. It was all on the first page. It might help you to understand that my post is hardly even discussing liberal people at all. Both are necessary to read.

Here are links:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x774166
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x775103

[ClassWarrior]

57. Calm down. Geez, no need to freak out.

I didn't comment on your thread. I commented on its title. Is that okay with you?

:eyes:

NGU.

[vaberella]

60. Not really...since it goes in line with the entire text. You're the only one making a complaint.

Everyone else, seems to have gotten it. You've taken the topic in a whole other direction. If you're not going to comment on the discussion--I always find title issues should be taken to the poster privately since it has nothing to do with the full context of the post.

[JuniperLea]

64. Very well played...

:thumbsup:

[ClassWarrior]

71. "Played?" You believe we should be "playing" with assassination references?

:wow:

NGU.

[vaberella]

74. I did not even read an assassination reference.

Again I think the only way to change the title is to alert the thread. I have no power to change it.

[ClassWarrior]

72. Who "took the topic in a whole other direction?" I simply raised a concern.

Do you feel a need to control the direction of a discussion? Or can people raise concerns when they have them?

NGU.

[vaberella]

75. Hardly...

But I find women's issues and men who are connected to it a very relevant topic...added to that the concerted effort of those to discredit the President as being insensitive to minority issues be them women, Black people, Latino, LGBT, and so forth. That was the focus of my topic, which you NEVER discussed, addressed, nor did I even think you bothered to read. You're focus was entirely my title. I find that moves the direction of the thread. Even if you had added your concern with some words for or against my topic, I would be a bit more sensitive to your statement. However, you did not. You disregarded my post entirely for focusing on the title.

In any event, there is no way I can change the title of the thread when you had posted because of the time limit that is given on posts. The only way is if the mods find it as offensive as you and considering I don't see the reference in light of my rather long post. I think we should leave it up to a mod to decide if the title is problematic. So I welcome you to report the thread.

[ClassWarrior]

73. By the way, Suskind's a dick. Did you read the book?

NGU.

[vaberella]

77. Not as of yet. But I will read it.

If only because one of the two women who worked in the Administration came out strongly stating that she never stated or claimed what Suskind stated in his book. And suggested he lied or used her statements in a hyperbolic fashion. But yeah, I will read it. Obama's actions for the right's of women are not lost to me.

[vaberella]

43. What dig at progressives? n/t

[frazzled]

49. It wasn't a dig at progressives.

I am a progressive/liberal.

It was a dig at faux progressives, such as those who do not support women's issues and who would rather find any reason to bolster their own views by blindly agreeing with the book's author (despite the OP's link to an article in which the people quoted deny they held the views ascribed to them) or nitpick about common vocabulary. Yes, false progressives.

[vaberella]

41. Assassination terminology? The book was written as a hit piece.

Shoot, even the woman who was interviewed for the book clearly stated that she NEVER made such allegations as the writer put forth. But I am using "assassination terminology"? As though stating the book is a hit piece is in some way false. It's whatever. The man has been called a homophobe, weak, "embracing Neo-liberal policies", many other things and now a misogynist and I'm supposed to sit back and agree with this idea without putting in my two cents? I can definitely discuss the role of women in politics---shit in the work place. In particular the plight of minority women, since I consider myself a Womanist and not a Feminist. However, I do take exception on things when the actions belie the statements.

[ClassWarrior]

48. Who said you shouldn't say your piece? I just said that your title is incredibly...

...cavalier toward the President, and I think he deserves more respect.

:shrug:

Geez, chill out.

NGU.

[vaberella]

50. Cavalier...I should call him then President or Mr. Obama..

Possibly. Most people here know that I adore this president and the fact you're derailing the conversation from the issue at hand to the title I use for him....I'm so not sure where that's coming from.

[ClassWarrior]

58. Then you shouldn't have a problem adjusting your title...

...so it doesn't suggest violence against him.

:shrug:

NGU.

[vaberella]

59. First off no I can't.

Second of all...how does my title suggest violence against the President. It's editorial jargon. It's used quite a bit on DU and on other political sites. If it's a problem---please alert it to a mod.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

35. I will add what I posted elsewhere.....

Thus far I see Two women appointed to the Supreme Court for life, and women high in the administration's cabinet like Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebilius, Hilda L. Solis, and Lisa P. Jackson. As well, I believe that additionally there have been appointments made for (very partial list) Nicole Yvette Lamb-Hale, of Michigan, assistant secretary of Commerce; Marisa Lago, of New York, assistant Treasury secretary; Ellen Gloninger Murray, of Virginia, assistant secretary of Health and Human Services; Mary John Miller, of Maryland, assistant secretary at Treasury; Mary Sally Matiella, of Arizona, assistant secretary of the Army; Cynthia L. Attwood, of Virginia, member of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission; Sharon Y. Bowen, of New York, director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, and Valerie Jarrett as one of his closest advisers, many others.....

In addition I note that of the 98 Obama judge nominees confirmed to date, 47% were women....which beats Clinton who had a 29% confirmation record on female judges. Of the total he has nominated (but not confirmed), the ratio is 58% women.

In addition, making Birth Control Free to women by insurance providers, establishing a Council for Women and Girls via an executive order, literally saving Planned Parenthood from going into extinction in some states, and the fact that NO Women's groups have had any comments beyond my understanding that the women in the book are saying they were misquoted.

I believe that is a lot of evidence on the President's side as one would have to
at least believe the mantra here at DU; actions speak louder than words.

[vaberella]

42. I 100% agree FrenchieCat.

Your list is extensive and I would have hoped that the mantra on DU about "action's speaking louder than words" it would seem that for some here---that doesn't matter. When it comes to actions, they aren't important as long as we can get our dig. A poster above thread just called Obama's actions "token." I have no words for comments like that and if there were people who denied Obama was disliked but they are dems "holding Obama's feet to the fire" I think the actions by some have proven otherwise. Obama really cares about women, his record on that is clear and undeniable--although others say differently. Thank you so much for the list of names. I didn't get to put them all out there.

[AverageJoe90]

53. Bravo, Vaberella, bravo.

All I can say is this: It is one thing to criticize mistakes made by the Obama administration. It is quite another to repeat endless loads of B.S. about him being a 'secret Republican', or 'Bush lite', etc.

Thanks for being honest, and informed. =)

[Hoosier Daddy]

56. Kick

[JuniperLea]

65. K since I can't R

Very well done!

:applause: