You stay classy, Bill Jeff:
Bill Clinton is speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival, and he said just now, apropos of almost nothing (actually, during a long peroration on Nelson Mandela): “Every living soul on this planet has some highly-justified anger. Everyone. If you know anybody who was a P.O.W. for any time, they can be going on for years and all of a sudden something will happen that will trigger all those bad memories.”Not too subtle. Astonishingly, his interviewer, former Clinton Administration official Jane Wales, didn’t follow-up. One subject Clinton didn’t talk about at all: Barack Obama. He seemed to go out of his way, in fact, not to mention Obama’s name. Which, when you think about, calls into question whether the P.O.W. shot was actually an intentional shot at all. On the other hand, I believe that Bill Clinton doesn’t say things by accident.
This new fangled kind of politics practiced by Obama and the Democrats sure looks familiar. It’s what Democrats have been saying about every Republican presidential candidate since Ike. Goldwater – might press the button he’s so extreme. Nixon – a paranoid. Ford – too stupid to be president. Reagan – dangerous extremist.
One would think they’d get off that hobby horse after losing a few elections. But since it makes them feel superior to Republicans by branding their candidates as mentally deficient, I doubt whether they will stop anytime soon.
Barack “Backtrack” Obama is “puzzled” by the reaction in the press to his two completely opposite statements he made last Thursday on Iraq and is blaming the McCain campaign for the confusion:
ABC News’ Sunlen Miller reports: Sen. Barack Obama told reporters he was “puzzled” by the press coverage he received on Thursday when he held two separate press conferences to explain his plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.On Thursday in Fargo, N.D,, Obama told reporters in a morning press conference that he will “continue to refine” his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq in 16 months.Reporters immediately jumped on the comments that showed that Obama’s expressed openness to adjust his long-held 16-month withdrawal plans was at odds with the stance that he took during the primary campaign.At his second hastily called press availability Thursday, Sen. Obama insinuated that the McCain campaign had primed the press and were to blame for the interpretation of his position.En route to a speech in St Louis today, the Senator told reporters on his plane that the news cycle his comments caused was perplexing.“I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement, which is that I am absolutely committed to ending the war,” he said.Obama reiterated his commitment to his withdraw plan again. “I will call my joint chiefs of staff and give them an assignment and that is to end the war,” he said. “I think what’s important is to understand the difference between strategy and tactics. I have always believed that our invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder.”
It is apparent that Obama thinks we’re idiots, that we forget from moment to moment where he stands on an issue. It isn’t “nuance.” It isn’t a “pivot” toward the center. It is rank pandering. When he calls a statement supporting the Washington D.C. gun ban made last year “inartful” while coming out and praising the Supreme Court decision striking it down, it only shows how much the candidate holds us in contempt.
But he’s right. By election day all of these flip flops will probably be forgotten as an avalanche of ads will obscure whatever positions Obama took to get the nomination by pandering to his liberal base. Unless McCain can find a way to highlight these naked flip flops, he will be in deep trouble as both candidates will sound eerily similar to the ear of the average voter.
By Selwyn Duke
What do you call a man who sermonizes about the evils of paying women less than men but allows that very practice in his own office? While a certain unflattering noun would leap to the mind of most, we can now apply a proper one: Barack Obama.
On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator . . . . Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one – Obama’s administrative manager – was a woman.
All the relevant factors that affect pay — occupation, experience, seniority, education and hours worked — are ignored [by those citing the wage gap]. This sound-bite statistic fails to take into account the different roles that work tends to play in men’s and women’s lives.In truth, I’m the cause of the wage gap – I and hundreds of thousands of women like me. I have a good education and have worked full time for 10 years. Yet throughout my career, I’ve made things other than money a priority. I chose to work in the nonprofit world because I find it fulfilling. I sought out a specialty and employer that seemed best suited to balancing my work and family life. When I had my daughter, I took time off and then opted to stay home full time and telecommute. I’m not making as much money as I could, but I’m compensated by having the best working arrangement I could hope for.Women make similar trade-offs all the time. Surveys have shown for years that women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay. Women tend to avoid jobs that require travel or relocation, and they take more time off and spend fewer hours in the office than men do.
To expand on this, women are more likely to decline promotions citing familial responsibilities; tend to gravitate toward lower-paying fields (e.g., favoring social sciences over hard ones); and, according to US Census Bureau statistics, full-time men average 2,213 working hours a year versus only 1,796 for “full-time” women. Thus, the same data telling us women earn less than men also explains why.
Female physicists are getting $6,500 more [than men]. Co-eds who majored in petroleum engineering are being offered $4,400 more. And women computer programmers are being enticed with $7,200 extra pay. In fact for dozens of majors and occupations, women coming out of college are getting better offers than men . . . .Why these disparities? Because in traditionally male-dominated professions, employers are willing to ante up more greenbacks to attract females in order to forestall a costly discrimination lawsuit.
. . . we can see a glimpse of the future in Norway, a land synonymous with über-feminism. In 2002, the nation embraced affirmative action on steroids, mandating that 40 percent of corporate boardroom members must be female. Since only seven percent were prior to this social engineering, just imagine how many highly qualified men are now denied jobs in the name of complying with this quota.
. . . as we force employers to deny positions, promotions and pay raises to qualified men in order to satisfy social engineers, many men will no longer be able to fulfill their obligation to put bread on the table. And this hurts the traditional family, forcing women out of the home to compensate for their now financially handicapped husbands and relegating children to day-care centers . . . . [And] It means, ladies, that your husbands, brothers and sons will find it increasingly difficult to get a fair shake in this Norway-quota brave new world.