Obama Pays Women Only 78 Percent of What He Pays Men

[HAL 9000 96]

I can only comment on the source provided. Right now, with the election battle being as heated as it is, and given that some will post anything that will paint either candidate in a negative light, no matter how unfounded or ridiculous, then I don't think you can blame either candidate's supporters for being defensive. All we can do is demand accuracy with facts.

I asked for facts this morning & was told to 'look 'em up myself'. I did & they did not match your assumption.

#######?

Dev, I think you know the difference between an opinion and fact, and an opinion based on fact. Staying on topic here - you have posted what is presented a study as purely factual, from a source that is unreliable, IMO. If you feel content with believing such information from such sources, more power to you. If you want to post it here on VJ and present it as irrefutable fact, I'm going to challenge you on it. And above all, if you think that convincing enough women that Obama hates them, then you're delusional. Obama was raised by a single, very feminist mother. His whole life including his voting record on women's issues as well as the type of prejudice he's personally experienced, demonstrates his firm belief in equality for all. And you know what, I believe McCain also believes in equality for all. In the scope of all this country is facing right now, this is just petty nonsense.

Wow, I guess that's what you call jumping to conclusions!!! You debating skills need to be based in fact, not half-truths & opinions.

That's some big shoes to fill - since you think you can speak for Obama now, as well as me.

Is he really speaking for you? I do think I read some 'if/then' conditionals there.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Expect when he voted "present" on parental consent in IL legislature. IL has parental consent laws for abortion, AK does not. It's an interesting contradiction.

[HAL 9000 96]

Expect when he voted "present" on parental consent in IL legislature. IL has parental consent laws for abortion, AK does not. It's an interesting contradiction.

I think that's also been covered. His 'present' votes, that is. Context, Robin...

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Expect when he voted "present" on parental consent in IL legislature. IL has parental consent laws for abortion, AK does not. It's an interesting contradiction.

I think that's also been covered. His 'present' votes, that is. Context, Robin...

Oh yeah - "political positioning" ie not taking a stand. Context I can believe in.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Expect when he voted "present" on parental consent in IL legislature. IL has parental consent laws for abortion, AK does not. It's an interesting contradiction.

GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy

"In the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted 'present" instead of "no' on five horrendous anti-choice bills."

--E-mail from NOW attacking Sen. Obama's record on abortion issues.The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. A chain e-mail denounced Obama's record on abortion, citing his "present" votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.

The Facts: Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation [and asked Obama to vote 'present' as a strategy]. NOW never endorsed the Planne Parenthood strategy of voting 'present,' saying "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes." Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood had different voting strategies on the abortion issue. It was impossible for Obama to satisfy both groups at once.

Source: GovWatch on 2008 NOW pro-Clinton campaign literature Feb 6, 2008

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

Edited September 23, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[HAL 9000 96]

NM

Speaking of NOW... who are they endorsing in this election?

Edited September 23, 2008 by maviwaro

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Expect when he voted "present" on parental consent in IL legislature. IL has parental consent laws for abortion, AK does not. It's an interesting contradiction.

GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy

"In the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted 'present" instead of "no' on five horrendous anti-choice bills."

--E-mail from NOW attacking Sen. Obama's record on abortion issues.The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. A chain e-mail denounced Obama's record on abortion, citing his "present" votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.

The Facts: Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation [and asked Obama to vote 'present' as a strategy]. NOW never endorsed the Planne Parenthood strategy of voting 'present,' saying "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes." Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood had different voting strategies on the abortion issue. It was impossible for Obama to satisfy both groups at once.

Source: GovWatch on 2008 NOW pro-Clinton campaign literature Feb 6, 2008

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

I'm sorry, but these facts as you present them don't win me over on this one. And by the way, I read all that already. I draw my own conclusions about his record because I come to these issues from a different perspective - they affect me in a way they have never affected you.

NM

Speaking of NOW... who are they endorsing in this election?

yes, because all things considered he is most likely the best candidate for the issues that are important to them. It doesn't mean he is beyond reproach and his tactics or positions should never be challenged.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well lets see what NOW says:

STATEMENT OF KIM GANDY

Chair, National Organization for Women Political Action Committee (NOW PAC)

September 16, 2008

It is with great enthusiasm that I announce today, on behalf of the nation's oldest and largest women's rights organization, that the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee (NOW PAC) proudly endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States.

It is no coincidence that I am joined in this announcement by so many allied organizations that collectively represent a broad and diverse cross-section of U.S. women. From teachers to social workers, from business owners to college students, women in this country are lining up behind the candidate who is out there every day standing up -- clearly and consistently -- for women. Women of all ages, races and ethnicities are coming together in support of Sen. Obama and his pledge to fulfill this country's promise of equal opportunity for our daughters as well as all our sons.

Although it is very unusual for us to endorse in a presidential election, this is an unprecedented candidate and an unprecedented time for our country. The NOW PAC reviewed Sen. Obama's record and public statements on issues that disproportionately affect the women of this nation, and I spoke with him at length about his commitment to women's equality. For example:

On pay equity. Sen. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation to end wage discrimination against women.

On reproductive rights. Sen. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, to strengthen access to contraception and reproductive health care, and prevent unwanted pregnancies. He strongly supports Roe v. Wade and will oppose any efforts to overturn it.

On violence against women. Sen. Obama supports the continued reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act -- of which Sen. Joe Biden is the chief sponsor -- as well as the Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act, which is legislation to provide legal, medical and financial support to victims of domestic violence.

On the Supreme Court. Sen. Obama opposed the nominations of George Bush's extreme right-wing nominees to the Supreme Court, who have consistently ruled against women's rights,

For more than a decade, Barack Obama has said "yes" to women's rights, while John McCain has consistently said "no" - NO to pay equity, NO to contraceptive access and reproductive rights, NO to appointing Supreme Court judges who will uphold women's rights and civil rights, NO to funding shelters and other anti-violence programs, and NO to supporting working moms and dads with policies that support work/life balance.

NOW supported Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primary, and now we join with her in saying "NO" -- No Way, No How, No McCain! And we proudly stand arm-in-arm with her in putting our hopes and our dreams, our hard work and our hard-earned money, behind the next President of the United States -- Barack Obama, and his running mate, longtime friend and ally of women, Sen. Joe Biden.

For more information, visit the NOW PAC Obama website.

Link.

And yes, Robin. We should always challenge our leaders to serve us. No matter who we think we are, we are the constituents and it is our Democratic Duty to demand that those who govern don't mistake a mandate as a blank check to do what they please.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Any contradiction between NOW's stated goals and their self-serving political acts is no surprise.

[IAMX 3,055]

Any contradiction between NOW's stated goals and their self-serving political acts is no surprise.

So you and NOW have something in common.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Any contradiction between NOW's stated goals and their self-serving political acts is no surprise.

So you and NOW have something in common.

That's pretty contrived (and lame). How long did it take you to "think" of it?

Edited September 23, 2008 by Virtual wife

[IAMX 3,055]

Any contradiction between NOW's stated goals and their self-serving political acts is no surprise.

So you and NOW have something in common.

That's pretty contrived (and lame). How long did it take you to "think" of it?

5 seconds. No substance to a post means no substance for a retort.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Any contradiction between NOW's stated goals and their self-serving political acts is no surprise.

So you and NOW have something in common.

That's pretty contrived (and lame). How long did it take you to "think" of it?

5 seconds. No substance to a post means no substance for a retort.

No substance is certainly your speed.