So basically your counterargument is that the economy has been worse - ergo Bush was not a catastrophe? Ignoring that the above still is only focusing on economics as opposed to policy, civil rights, environment, corruption, waste, staggering defecits etc... it's still a really weak argument.
Ah Man! from josh -- Obama Won't Declare Victory Tomorrow Night Although Barack Obama could end up with a majority of the pledged delegates after tomorrow's voting in Kentucky and Oregon, Obama himself declared yesterday in Oregon that this "does not mean we declare victory." Obama advisers have been saying privately and publicly for weeks now that May 20th will be the campaign's D-Day -- the day that they secure a majority of the pledged delegates (not necessarily including Florida and Michigan, which the Clinton campaign will argue negates the significance of securing that majority). The fact that Obama won't use this milestone, should it occur, to declare victory represents the topsy-turvy set of considerations that Obama advisers are entertaining as they puzzle out how to wrap this thing up while keeping the party unified. Before they had effectively won the primary, they were trying to persuade reporters that they were on track to winning on May 20th. But now that they have effectively won, they will take care not to declare victory, in order to avoid alienating Hillary's supporters in advance of the general election.
Major, I don't have the time right now to address everything I think is wrong in your post. It's tempting to just come out with, "I will say that I think you are seeing what you want to see," and leave at that, but all you have to do is look at your own graph. Women's wages have been flat for several years. Men's wages have been volatile, and I'm sure we could both come up with good reasons for that, but women have seen their lower wages remain flat. The most recent figure, using your graph, show the gap widening again. Did someone heist your computer?? Seriously, Major, then why is it considered a big deal when a black man, Barack Obama, has an excellent shot at the Presidency? Or if Richardson did? This is the first time in our history that a woman has had a serious shot at the nomination and the Presidency while running a campaign and competing in the primaries. With things done a bit differently by her campaign, or the Reverend Wright coming out earlier, it could be her sitting in the cat-bird seat, not Barack. It could be Barack close to her totals and fighting for every last delegate. You don't think that is huge for women? Impeach Bush.
The most recent figure is one year though - and it's maybe $0.20. That's just statistical noise. I do think, though, that even 6 years is not enough. I'd prefer to see a 10 or 20 or 40 year graph - I think it would show a continuing trend of a narrowing wage gap over the long haul. No one is arguing that there's not a gap there - but the situation is *already* improving itself. I think suggesting that it won't ever fix itself until a woman is President is just strange. I never said it wasn't huge for women - or for Black or Hispanic Americans. It's huge for all three groups, which is why they get immense support from those groups - and no one has a problem with that, as far as I can tell. For any of those three groups to have "one of their own" is a sign of immense progress in this country. But those doors opened up *before* these people would become President. It's not that it takes this person to improve the lives of those groups. It's that the lives of those groups have improved over the years, and we may see it in the form of one of them becoming President. Obama becoming President, for example, isn't necessary to or going to solve the problems of black America any more than Hillary is necessary to solve the gender wage gap. It's still all about the policies - and any President, whatever race or gender, is capable of implementing policies that work to improve those issues. And any President is capable of ignoring those issues as well. My only point is that it doesn't require a woman to be in charge to address the gender wage gap; nor does it take a black person to be in charge to address the racial wage gap. Like racism, I would venture to guess if you took surveys of different age groups, you'd see sexism decreasing for each generation. You can accelerate it to a point, but to some extent, as bad as it sounds, you just have to let time pass and a new population replace an older population that was raised in different times.
Major, here's the quote you are responding to and call "strange." Women are still discriminated against in this country. Most of them, not the Stepford Wives, but most of them understand that until they hold the highest office in the land, this issue that affects them so deeply, inequality compared to men, and not just in wages, will not be addressed. A woman VP would go a long way to give equality a push. What's the matter? Did I leave out some words? Is it that difficult to understand? Is this better? Most of them, not the Stepford Wives, but most of them understand that until they hold the highest office in the land, this issue that affects them so deeply, inequality compared to men, and not just in wages, will not be addressed enough to reach full equality. Is that better? Do you know any feminists? Strange?? Give me a break! Impeach Bush.
Yes, I consider this statement strange, bizarre, whatever. To say that no one but a woman can address women's inequality is absurd. Didn't white men give them the right to vote? Did that not address inequality to some extent? Even adding your "enough to reach full equality" is odd to me. It suggests that men are incapable of being non-sexist, which I think is simply not true. I don't think you need a black President to address black inequality either. You simply need good people - and they come in all genders and races. Every generation, you get more and more good people and you see less and less discrimination. Having a woman or a black President is not going to change the sexism and racism that's out there - that simply takes time. Most of the ones I know support Obama. They would strongly disagree with your statement. This may be a generational thing to some extent - feminists have been going after each other as well. Older feminists have been blasting younger feminists in the media quite a bit for supporting Obama, and vice-versa.
You simply don't get it. Thanks so much for calling my post "strange, bizarre, whatever." Up yours too, Major. Impeach Bush.
Whoops, most of the people went to see The Decemberists... _____ * The Decemberists to play set at Barack Obama Rally SUNDAY For those in the vicinity of Portland, Oregon this weekend, The Decemberists will play an hour-long set at a Rally with Barack Obama THIS SUNDAY, May 18th. The rally will take place at The Bowl in Waterfront Park, Corner of SW Columbia St. and Naito Pkwy, just south of the Hawthorne Bridge. Doors open at 12:30 pm and The Decemberists will play shortly thereafter. The event is free and open to the public. Tickets are not required, but an RSVP is strongly encouraged. Admission is on a first-come, first-served basis. link
I'm sure some were there to see Obama, but once again the press spins a story in his favor by failing to mention the band in most of the articles.
i'm gonna guess this band doesn't draw anywhere near that number. i googled their concert attendance, they drew 10,000 for a free concert in Chicago, a much larger city, although like i say, I don't know anything about them or the demographics of their following.
I have no way to know what number of people were there to see them, but Oregon is their home state. I love the Decemberists. I would have gone to see both Barack and the band.
i've seen the decemberists live, great band. however, BARACK BLACK EAGLE, "One Who Helps People Throughout the Land.", was the headliner for good reason.
The playful scamps at Sadly No are on the case- Above: Decemberists concert in Portland two weekends before the Obama rally Above: Venue of earlier Decemberists concert Above: Capacity of concert venue Apparently, there was also ice cream for sale. By ignoring the ice cream, the liberal media made it appear that 75,000 people were drawn only by the Decemberists and that neatly-dressed rapper who took the stage after their concert. http://www.sadlyno.com/
They are extremely popular in Oregon their home state -- not saying that Obama wouldn't have had a good crowd out there by himself, but it should be mentioned that a significant portion of the folks were there for the band.
well your original post said "most" were there to see the band. i think that was pretty biased from your point of view.
It was promoted as an Obama rally. I'm sure the location, weather, band and ice cream helped attendance....but I'd guess the vast majority were paying attention when the good senator took the microphone.
You don't think more than half those folks were there to see a free concert on a beautiful day instead of a 30 minute Obama stump speech ?
