Print Columns   |   Web Chats   |   Blog Archives   |  

Switching From Clinton To Palin: Pride Or Provocation?

Lynette Long's friends can barely sputter their objections. "How could you?" they say. "What about the environment? What about gay rights? What about Roe v. Wade?"

Long's son calls, flabbergasted. And her patients in affluent, liberal Bethesda? They can hardly fathom it.

Lynette Long -- psychologist, feminist, Democrat, Dupont Circle dweller, Whole Foods shopper, George Bush hater, Hillary Clinton supporter (to the max) -- is not just voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin, she even took the stage at their rally in Fairfax to trumpet her decision to the world.

Long got the call from the McCain campaign at 10 the night before the rally this month. With a twinkle in her eye, the struggle for women in her heart and a bit of mischief in her mind, she agreed to be a warm-up speaker for the Republican ticket.

She had never been to a candidate's rally before. She had voted for the Democrat for president in every election except for the elder George Bush's first time, against Michael Dukakis in 1988. Sure, she had demonstrated against the Vietnam War, but she basically wasn't the political type. That is, until Hillary Clinton came along.

All of a sudden, Long saw hope. As she told her son: "How would you feel if every day all the people you saw in authority were men, all the statues in Washington are all men, the money in your pocket, all pictures of men -- and then finally, a woman comes along and she could be president? How would you feel? I would vote for her."

Long didn't just vote for Clinton in the D.C. primary. She blogged for her, campaigned for her, even wrote op-ed columns about her. But as Clinton's campaign faltered, Long felt wronged. She blogged about purported irregularities in caucus voting, accused Barack Obama and his supporters of taking women for granted, put all her hope in the Democrats picking a woman for vice president.

After Clinton's campaign ended, Long was among a group of local supporters who called McCain headquarters, asking, "What can you do for us?" To Long's shock, they were invited to a meeting -- with McCain himself.

"We told him we wanted gender parity, on the Supreme Court and in the Cabinet, and he listened," she says. "His eyes opened." At meeting's end, a senior staffer asked Long if she would endorse their man publicly.

"No way," Long said. "I'm a Hillary supporter."

Then, lo and behold, Sarah Palin happened.

By coincidence, Long was on an Alaskan cruise that week. "Everybody there loved" Palin, Long says. "I could see people glowing with pride."

The next time the McCain campaign called, Long was ready. She had 10 hours to write a speech, sleep and get herself to Fairfax City.

"What do you want me to say?" she asked the organizer. "Do you want to see my speech?"

Whatever you want to say, she was told. And no, we don't need to see it.

"I was shocked," Long says. "I wouldn't let someone go up and speak without seeing the speech. But they did, and that told me something about the man."

Long agrees that Palin is not exactly, um, worldly, and that she lacks a certain base of knowledge. ("But I know character and instincts, and she is real.") And yes, Long vehemently disagrees with the Republicans' social conservatism.

But other factors trump those issues, she says, naming Obama's inexperience, Clinton's treatment by her party and the media, and the Democrats' failure to choose a female running mate.

The issue that has most of Long's friends recoiling in abject horror from her decision is abortion. Long calls herself unwaveringly "pro-choice." But, she says, "as long as we let that determine our votes, we are hostages to the Democrats. If someone really tried to turn around choice, there'd be a revolution in this country. And I'm not going to let a future possibility nullify my vote. Women have sacrificed our power as the largest voting bloc in the nation because of one issue, abortion."

Now hold on: Long disagrees with McCain on many issues and concedes Palin's limitations. Then, when her e-mail lights up with unfounded rumors that Obama might dump Joe Biden and switch to Hillary Clinton, she nearly explodes with excitement. Is she really pro-McCain, or is she just being provocative?

Long is the kind of person who is drawn to a fire, she grants that. She says she wore her Palin button to the Whole Foods on 14th Street NW just to see if she'd get a rise out of the assembled crunchies. No one would even look her in the eye, she reports.

She seems downright gleeful as she describes her fellow liberals' faces draining of blood when she sings Palin's praises. But when I suggest that the McCain camp is using her even as she uses it to teach fellow Democrats a lesson about taking women for granted, she says: "No, that's too crass. You have to break down a house to rebuild it, but Palin is likable, popular and has integrity. She's a person who will listen. Is she smart enough to do the job? Hey, Reagan was no brain surgeon, but people would follow him. It's about leadership. Sarah has made mistakes, but out of naivete, not out of corruption."

Every couple of minutes, Long -- looking like the unPalin in black T-shirt, cargo pants and canvas sneakers -- reflexively checks her e-mail, revealing a new list of fire-spewing rants accusing her of betrayal, sexism and worse. She loves it.

I posit that her newfound activism is really more about sticking it to Democratic men than about any real belief that McCain might promote the interests of women or that Palin would be a good president should she ascend to that role. Long protests that she really would be happy with a President Palin, a woman who understands the majority of Americans as no man could.

And then she says this: "I just don't understand how the Democrats couldn't see that women wanted a woman. I'm not getting back in bed with someone who's just abused me. Yeah, it's payback time."

By Marc Fisher |  September 21, 2008; 10:06 AM ET
Previous: Ripping Obama: Gilmore's Last Hope Against Warner? | Next: Nats '09: Lower Ticket Prices Aren't Enough

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



We've all heard the jokes about men who think with their "little head" instead of their big head - well, now we've got the female version of that.

But more than that, she just wants attention.

I, for one, won't be giving her any.

Tantrums aren't nearly as much fun for those throwing them if no one is paying any attention to it.

Posted by: Pagun | September 21, 2008 10:54 AM

When a Republican endorses Obama they're brave and insightful. They're motives are never questioned.

When a Democrat endorses McCain they're petty and spiteful.

Posted by: info | September 21, 2008 11:01 AM

This is news? Some upper-class twit is going to vote based on her vagin@? yawn....

Posted by: booooring... | September 21, 2008 11:16 AM

I feel the same way about the democrats. They have held our reproductive freedoms hostage long enough. Im not voting for McCain but I sure as heck am not supporting Obama. I was literally swarmed by Obama trolls trying to gain my support at a local festival yesterday. I politely said NO THANK YOU. They were surprised because Im african american and female. When they spew their venom. I tell them why I dont support their messiah and walk away.

Posted by: Sonia | September 21, 2008 11:16 AM

Country First huh? Just another hypocrite in her words getting "payback"!

Posted by: dukie1 | September 21, 2008 11:18 AM

Long is America's most sexist person.

Posted by: etw3554 | September 21, 2008 11:19 AM

I understand how she feels and I am man. I have voted Democrat for 38 years. I have always told people It's not about party, it's about principle. I thought when I told my friends that I was thinking about voting for McCain they would have a heart attack. But, strangely enough there are more of " us" out there then I thought. Something inside me doesn't trust Obama( and no, it's not because he is AfroAmerican). Part of it is bedcause the media primped and painted him all up for us. They didn't do any digging. So, I don't trust him. And for me a bad Domcrat is not better than a bad Republican.
I am tired of the Democratic Party always nominating the most liberal candidate.
Maybe if Obama loses they will rethink their thought process.

Posted by: Samuel | September 21, 2008 11:21 AM

Quoting Joe Biden himself Hillay would have made a better VP than he would ! Then why would not she chosen? for Hillary supporters that are voting for Obama.Did you forget How she was pushed out of the race for Obama even before Texas primary. They were calling for her concession. Hillary made an announcement that she was not going to suspend her compaign on thrusday then she had a meeting with the DNC on friday in which they told her " it would be better for her to concende then" If that was not intimidation, what is? and now she is under pressure to support Obama for her political career which is understandable but we do not have a political career that the DNC could threaten to end. We are free to chooce. What is the exact formula for us to have a woman for VP or president ? They used to say any one but Hillary. and now it is anyone but Palin ? Palin is not Hillary ! So you are telling me that over 200 years there is no qualified woman with integrity that could be president of this great nation ? I think we need to give women from both political parties a chance to prove themselives and what they can do !experience does not matter, given the fact that Obama won over Hilary.

Posted by: CVO | September 21, 2008 11:24 AM

"Women have sacrificed our power as the largest voting bloc in the nation because of one issue, abortion."

I have wondered about this one for years ... when the majority of women are pro-life (and this has been trending up each generation) why hang this "abortion" carrot in front of women all the time?

Posted by: just a thought | September 21, 2008 11:27 AM

"Caribou Prom Queen" and "Dupont Circle Woman Scorned" are perfect for each other.

As Rachel Maddow puts it, these crazed Hillary Dead-Enders are "Post Rational."

Like all crazy zealots.

The woman votes in DC, so it doesn't matter anyway. Let her be bitter and sad. Perhaps, in the back of her mind, she knows this.

Posted by: Louise | September 21, 2008 11:28 AM

I am tired of the Democratic Party always nominating the most liberal candidate.
Maybe if Obama loses they will rethink their thought process.

Posted by: Samuel | September 21, 2008 11:21 AM
============================
Samuel for the record, Hillary Clinton has a more liberal record than Obama. Additionally when did "liberal" become a bad word amongst democrats?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2008 11:38 AM

Palin has misrepresented or falsified nearly everything about herself. Her persona as a candidate, that of a frugal reformer, is a fictional creation. The truth is all out there in media reports. You just have to make the effort to find it and read it.

Posted by: Eric | September 21, 2008 11:40 AM

Ehhh, sorry Hillary lost, but she lost after losing eleven in a row, but years of bitterness will do a lot of good, like all that bitterness after 2000 helped win the 2004 election...oh yeah.

I too have decided to vote for only persons with my sexual organs, or thus Obama/Biden are a double team for me.

Posted by: Ben | September 21, 2008 11:44 AM

I can understand why Ms.Long,like thousands of us have hesitancy supporting a chauvinistic pig who constantly berate and dis women including Sen Clinton.

Posted by: Hillary2012 | September 21, 2008 11:49 AM

It's nice, I guess, that Long is having fun, but somebody is going to win this election, appoint people, and govern. Her lack of seriousness is offensive.

As to the idea that the media have given Obama a pass, I just don't buy it. And, even if it were true, don't you think Clinton's and McCain's oppo researchers have tried to track down every piece of dirt they can find? The idea that he is less trustworthy than other politicians seems totally off-base to me. Despite his exotic background, he seems like a pretty normal middle-class guy: successful in school, nice wife and family, smart, great political talent. What's not to like?

Most important, Obama is forward-looking. We need to think about the interconnected world we live in now. McCain's worldview is archaic--20th century, maybe even 19th century.

Posted by: THS | September 21, 2008 11:56 AM

Samuel - Kerry was the most liberal candidate? As opposed to Dean or Kucinich? Obama vs. Kucinich or Edwards? C'mon! Perhaps you mean don't nominate the most conservative candidate.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | September 21, 2008 12:08 PM

Maybe you can be on the same Moose head wall that most Alaskan's have in their living room!

Posted by: jerry rubin | September 21, 2008 12:12 PM

If a candidate treated Obama the way Obama treated Clinton, there would be calls to throw him out of the party.

democratic party--
no racism, but more sexism than anyone cane stomach

Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2008 12:18 PM

So Long would have voted for Adolph Hitler if he'd been a woman? It does no good to vote for a woman whose policies are in lockstep with patriarchal agendas and that is exactly who and what Palin is.

Posted by: windrider | September 21, 2008 12:25 PM

"I just don't understand how the Democrats couldn't see that women wanted a woman. I'm not getting back in bed with someone who's just abused me. Yeah, it's payback time."

My god! We've all just been abused for eight long years, and that's exactly what you're doing, jumping back in bed with your abuser--the only difference is that this time you're going for a three way!

And you're making us watch!

Posted by: 5L4M | September 21, 2008 12:30 PM

Wow what a pathetic woman. So hungry for power that she would do anything. How can anyone believe that one person, or one job is going to be the savior for women rights. Goodbye Ms. Long and good ridden.

Posted by: james - Los Angeles | September 21, 2008 12:32 PM

Lynette Long and other supporters of Hillary Clinton wanted a woman. Political strategists wanted a swing-state governor. Folks who fear for our national security wanted a general (or at least former Navy secretary). Jews wanted a hardliner on Iran. The Democratic Party is indeed a big tent party.

Get over yourself, Lynette. It's not all about you.

Posted by: Sarah FP | September 21, 2008 12:33 PM

McCain and Palin have long track records of being against, woman's rights, victims rights, children’s rights, first amendment rights and the right to choose.

When you consider that McCain/Palin ticket is one hundred and eighty degrees away from Lowe’s core beliefs and Hillary’s core beliefs one can only sadly assume this: Obama is a man, not just any man but, a black man. Lowe is not alone, many are terrified of black men and do not want one or his chocolate babies in the White (White) House.

Hey it has to be said.

Posted by: Cario | September 21, 2008 12:37 PM

"How would you feel if every day all the people you saw in authority were men, all the statues in Washington are all men, the money in your pocket, all pictures of men -- and then finally, a woman comes along and she could be president? How would you feel? I would vote for her."

******

A woman. Any woman. Quite a leap. Can you swim?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2008 12:45 PM

I suppose that if emotion and a uterus is all you've got then the choice is inevitable. Vote for the uterus that makes you glow.

Personally, I think it is more important to save our soldier's lives than to glow with pride.

Posted by: Martiniano | September 21, 2008 12:50 PM

"Democrats are holding our reproductive freedoms hostage" Say, whaaaaa?

This isn't 1984. It's 2008. How's about caring about something different, just for a change. Like, uh, war, what is it good for?
Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal or covet thy neighbor's oil fields. Thou shalt not deregulate in order to get rich. I am female and I don't need or want an abortion. I will vote for the Democrat because I don't want crazy people running the country. Enough of a reason? Maybe not.

Posted by: Sylvia | September 21, 2008 12:51 PM

McCain hired more women for his senate office than did obama, and they are paid equal to the male staff, unlike obama!

However, obamanite women claim that obama will be better for women?? McCain treats women in the workplace equally, obama DOESN'T! What more do you need to know about the candidates on women issues.

Posted by: Tony S. | September 21, 2008 12:57 PM

Interesting that you didn't ask Ms. Long about her attitudes on race.

Neither Obama nor his campaign made any sexist remark or attack against Hillary. This is a fact that can easily be checked.

Since Long apparently believes otherwise, and apparently is an intelligent person, I'd be curious to find the real source of her misinformation.

Posted by: Helen | September 21, 2008 1:00 PM

Lynette is by no means a hostage to the Democrats, and I wish her well with her new affiliations.

What surprises me about Lynette's brand of feminism, however, at least the way this article presents it, is how exclusive it is. Most feminists I know really do hope to give voice to all of the voiceless among us who are silenced by monolithic power. The silenced include women, but also gay people and victims of racism, the poor, and others. In my mind, Obama is a feminist candidate just as Clinton was (and will be again someday, I hope). I believe Obama, as the son of a bright single mother, will strengthen the role of empowered women in society. And he just happened to be the one who won the primary this time around.

I must admit, I'm not sure I understand how people like Lynette are actually excited to support a party whose goals are so opposed to empowering the very people she claims to hope to help. McCain couldn't even bring himself to vote to pass equal pay for equal work legislation.

Posted by: Troy | September 21, 2008 1:08 PM

Ms. Long is wrong to think that Roe is safe or that McCain supports gender parity of any sort. Of course, as an upper class woman past child bearing age, she doesn't and won't feel the pain of those who will have to live in a world where reproductive choice has been eliminated and where working class women continue to earn pennies on the dollar for comparable work and have had access to affordable health insurance eliminated for them and their children. Vapid, selfish, irrational.

Posted by: themis | September 21, 2008 1:08 PM

A force for division with a profound sense of entitlement or a right wing intellectual mediocrity - just as long as it's a woman.

Posted by: Bruce | September 21, 2008 1:10 PM

The most telling thing to me about her in this piece is her comment about Reagan not being a brain surgeon but being able to lead people.
And where did he lead us? It's very evident now. And it's not a good place to be in. If she was fooled into believing Reaganism was/is a good thing she's no Democrat I want to associate with.

Posted by: Bill | September 21, 2008 1:14 PM

Apparently Ms. Long's thinking is very short sighted.

Posted by: Think Tanker | September 21, 2008 1:14 PM

I'm sorry but this is just a short story about some uppercrust, well heeled snob who craves the attention missing from her life. Poor Lynette.

Wow, she went all the way to Whole Foods on 14th St. NW wearing a Palin button to see if she could get a response. She didn't. Its not that people in the store "didn't look her in the eye," its just that those folks were grocery shopping and couldn't care less about her or her button. Well that certainly is working hard for old man McCain.

And then she traveled all the way to Fairfax City to say a few words. Wow! What dedication.

The only people I feel sorry for are the men in Lynette's life and those who have to listen to her rants on a daily basis. Any ways, her GOP vote will disappear in DC's Democratic landslide. So who cares!

Posted by: Poor Lynette | September 21, 2008 1:16 PM

Sarah Palin is a woman who has never questioned her core beliefs and apparently, believes that willfullness and conviction are virtues in themselves. She is "real" all right; she is an authentic product of one-sided cultural conditioning. She is morally opposed to the kind of self-inquiry that Barack Obama or even John McCain have gone through to become the people they are today. This puts her at odds with the basic concept of liberalism, in which questioning and investigation are required before making a decision. Palin "doesn't blink," she acts without thinking. This disqualifies her from power, regardless of how one may feel about her stand on specific issues. Ms. Long as a psychologist should understand the danger.

Posted by: eatbees | September 21, 2008 1:20 PM

"The issue that has most of Long's friends recoiling in abject horror from her decision is abortion. Long calls herself unwaveringly "pro-choice." But, she says, "as long as we let that determine our votes, we are hostages to the Democrats. If someone really tried to turn around choice, there'd be a revolution in this country. And I'm not going to let a future possibility nullify my vote. Women have sacrificed our power as the largest voting bloc in the nation because of one issue, abortion."

She gets it. She really gets it.

Woman are a marginalized majority, not a minority.

Blacks 50 percent of the electorate

Why does the democratic party keep marginalizing women?

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 21, 2008 1:21 PM

Ms. Long is a sad, sad person. In my opinion, one should vote based on issues, experience, judgment, etc. Ms. Long seems have made her pick solely on the basis of chromosomes, which is a form of tribalism. Keep in mind that tribalism is what tears apart so many places in the world, like the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

The only thing that Hillary and Palin have in common is their sex, and that seems to be enough for Ms. Long. Frankly, she's no different than a white Democrat voting for McCain over Obama because McCain is white. We rightly condemn racially oriented voting, and we should equally condemn sex oriented voting.

Posted by: JMG_DC | September 21, 2008 1:22 PM

The tag-stripper mangled my post, here it is again:

She gets it. She really gets it.

Woman are a marginalized majority, not a minority.

Blacks are less than 16% of the electorate
Women are more than 50% of the electorate

Why does the democratic party keep marginalizing women?

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 21, 2008 1:23 PM

Well, someone should remind Ms. Long that when you vote your genitals, instead of your brains, eventually you get screwed.

Posted by: Brain Voter | September 21, 2008 1:25 PM

Hmmm...Driven by a narrow, exclusive ideology and inflamed with a sense of being wronged, supporting a candidate based on a single characteristic (i.e., gender in this case). Perhaps Rush Limbaugh is not that far off in his characterization of "feminazis" after all.

Posted by: JustAThought | September 21, 2008 1:26 PM

All of these issues the democrats talk about this year:

(1) the Ledbetter law that marginally extends the statute of limitations for some kinds of lawsuits

(2) the Roe v. Wade bogeyman again,

These are issues that are of importance and relevance to poor, lower-class women. The wage issue is relevant to women who work on easily-determined pay scales, like factory workers and other blue collar environments. Professional women, experts and executives don't sign those kinds of employment contracts.

The Roe v. Wade guarantee against states banning abortion are mainly of concern to women who are too ignorant and/or poor to (1) use contraception and, failing that, (2) cross a state line to get an abortion. It's not like with a few hundred dollars and an Internet connection you can't go to just about any state for a minor procedure on a few days' notice these days. How poor/ignorant/isolated do you have to be to fear Roe v. Wade.

I'm not saying these things aren't nice protections, but they're not my issues. I'm more concerned about how the democratic party mainstreamed executive-female bashing memes and rhetoric this year, how they approved of and engaged in mainstream media sexist invective, how they marginalized and dismissed Hillary Clinton and how much damage they did to female professional and executive paradigms this year.

These poor-woman issues like the Ledbetter statute of limitations extension for wage pay equity for non-exempt (blue collar/pink collar) workers, Roe v. Wade, aren't really relevant to me.

These poor-woman issues just are not worth lashing my vote to a sexist party that has engaged in a gender selective version of class warfare against executive females this year. The dems don't deserve holding the female vote hostage over what they have done. Frankly, they are doing poor women a disservice by using their issues to politically pressure women into toeing the line to be a monolithic vote for them. IF these poor-woman's issues get damaged as a result, they shouldn't have used them as a club.

When Clinton supporters argued that she was discriminated against, Obama's feminist supporters came back with, "We're not against any woman as president, just THIS woman."

Well, now they are against another woman, for entirely different reasons. There were two powerful, popular examples of leadership woman before us this year.

If not these women, which woman?

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 21, 2008 1:34 PM

I ask any and all of you to read this good journalist's article, posted this week in the NYT.

He is more conservative on most issues, but he frames this article in a great perspective way.

It is truly worth a read. Please take a moment and consider what he is saying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?

Posted by: jerry rubin | September 21, 2008 1:37 PM

Well, someone should remind Ms. Long that when you vote your genitals, instead of your brains, eventually you get screwed.

Posted by: Brain Voter | September 21, 2008 1:25 PM

I have 2 responses to that:

First, if that is what she is doing, why should she vote the color of YOUR skin instead of HER gender preference? Why should we vote for an under-qualified narcissist because of the color of your skin?

Second, this should be a lesson to any minority group member who thinks that they can achieve some breakthrough by engaging in the belittling and marginalization of another group who also seeks rights. Especially when that group not a minority but a marginalized majority.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 21, 2008 1:38 PM

Barack Hussein Obama is fundamentally the Black candidate. He has been playing the race card since day #1. For 20 years, he attended a church teaching hatred of Whites and Asians. The African-American voters rewarded him with 90% support.

This Blackness poses a problem for him in the general election, where the majority of voters are not African-Americans. So, he hired a group of African-Americans to accuse him of being a candidate of the Ku Klux Klan. This Machiavellian strategy is intended to alter his image as the Black candidate and, hence, is intended to appeal to non-African-American voters.

This fact is a genuine fact. It is not a joke. During a recent speech by Obama, a group of African-Americans disrupted the event and loudly "accused" Obama of being supported by the Ku Klux Klan.

Barack Hussein is playing dirty racial politics.

Posted by: sea bass | September 21, 2008 1:38 PM

He is more conservative on most issues, but he frames this article in a great perspective way. It is truly worth a read. Please take a moment and consider what he is saying.

Posted by: jerry rubin | September 21, 2008 1:37 PM

Brooks is an Obama hack and has been writing to get him elected for along time.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 21, 2008 1:39 PM

I am right there with you Lynette Long!

Democrat for 38 years, never missed an election. Held party positions, attended conventions and donated a lot of money. I am so done.

I will vote for McCain/Palin, many of the same reasons the same as Longs.


Posted by: MadelienFL | September 21, 2008 1:41 PM

Straight up rubbish! That's what I call cutting your nose off to spite your face. Makes no sense.

Posted by: str8up | September 21, 2008 1:45 PM

In my mind, Obama is a feminist candidate just as Clinton was (and will be again someday, I hope). ...

Posted by: Troy | September 21, 2008 1:08 PM

He's incredibly sexist. He pays pro forma lip service and reflexive support for the party line. That's a cultural, political necessity for him as an urban Democrat. However, in all his other dealings, and in the way he's handled his campaign against 2 female opponents this year, he's incredibly sexist professionally.

LIPSTICK VS LIP SERVICE -- HOW MCCAIN, OBAMA PAY WOMEN

:::: Obama's women earn only 0.83/dollar compared to his men ::::
:::: McCain's women earn $1.04/dollar compared to his men ::::

How Team Obama Pays Women
By Deroy Murdock

‘Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work,” ... Barack Obama said August 28 in his convention acceptance speech.

"Obama’s campaign website... laments that, “Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act…”

Obama’s commitment to federally mandated pay equity ... seems to have eluded his United States Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.

...Obama’s 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama’s average male employee earned $54,397. Obama’s 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.

Why this disparity? One reason may be the underrepresentation of women among Obama’s highest-compensated employees. Of Obama’s five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.

On average, Obama’s female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama’s campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama’s rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue.

...McCain’s payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams.

McCain’s 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.

On average, according to these data, women in John McCain’s office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, ceteris paribus, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart — while adding $10,726 to her annual income — by leaving Barack Obama’s office and going to work for John McCain.

more at: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmEzMTZmNTk5MDI0NTZmNjUwMjllN2ZlZTc0MWFmYzY=

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 21, 2008 1:50 PM

Let's be real, could you honestly see Senator Clinton being happy with being the VP? Although she suggested she would accept the VP spot, I just don't see her and that position being very compatible. In fact I think the pairing would have been a disaster, maybe not during the campaign so much, but after assuming office.

You cannot have two people as president at the same time. Don't point to Cheney and Bush since one is the brains and the other the stooge. Clinton and Obama are both intelligent people, thinking individuals, but both also would need the freedom to lead. I don't believe that would have happened whether it was Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton.

Personally I believe Ms. Long is a fool when so much is at stake, but we are all entitled to vote how we see fit. The American people will get the government they deserve one way or the other.

Posted by: Oh brother! | September 21, 2008 1:51 PM

You're going to vote for a woman who charged rape victims for their forensic exam, an act that so shocked the conscience of the Alaska Legisature that it unanimously passed a bill to stop Wasilla from doing that?

You're going to vote for a woman who appointed a man who had a reprimand for sexual harassment to replace the public safety commissioner, who was fired because he sought federal funds to fight rape and sex abuse in Alaska, the state with the highest rape rate?

Posted by: John | September 21, 2008 1:51 PM

I am a woman, and the type of politics adopted by Ms. Long make me ill. If she truly supported Hillary the candidate, then she would now be supporting Obama, who is much more in line with Hillary than John McCain or Sara Palin ever will be. If McCain wins, Hillary's political opportunities are dead in the water. If Obama wins, Hillary will likely have a prominent place in his administration and do more for the country than McCain or Palin would combined. McCain and Palin would set women's issues in this country back twenty years. That should frighten anyone who wants to see a woman in office, but no, Ms. Long would rather pitch a temper tantrum and make the rest of us hardworking women look bad.

Posted by: givemeabreak | September 21, 2008 1:51 PM

What an absolute drama queen. Have fun with Lady Rothschild at tea, but don't come crying when your child gets raped and is forced to carry the rapist's baby. McCain and Palin will resassure you that it's all for the best.

Posted by: SMC | September 21, 2008 1:51 PM

someone defines themselves


as a liberal, a democrat, a conservative, or a republican...


they are thinking with their "little head,"

electing someone to run the country, set laws and spend


$TRILLIONS$ of mutha fxxxing DOLLARS

is not a spectator sport that has no real world consequences...

we SHOULD BE ELECTING THE BEST MANAGERS

not the best spinners.

And voting spite is voting stupid.

CONGRESS, passes laws, and spends $TRILLIONS$ of our dollars on what it

wants to......you had better understand that when you vote. Is the one you picked going to do a good job managing?

Or are you voting "your emotions" aka "your little head"

CIA involvement with the Republican party needs to be punished.


Robert M. Gates should be tried for treason.

SEARCH on:

October Surprise, Carter, Russia, Paris, Robert M. Gates, George H.W. Bush, William Casey

it's a felony and a FEDERAL OFFENSE perps, and you should do the time, and or be_executed.

thanks so much.

Posted by: when | September 21, 2008 1:53 PM

When a Republican endorses Obama they're brave and insightful. They're motives are never questioned.

When a Democrat endorses McCain they're petty and spiteful.

Posted by: info | September 21, 2008 11:01 AM
---------------------
And yet it's pretty clear she's being petty and spiteful.

Posted by: Obama '08 | September 21, 2008 1:53 PM

Pity the patients. How can anyone with so much pure hatred in her heart, with an expressly sociopatic desire for vengeance at any cost, presume to COUNSEL anyone in a pseudo-professional role? Perhaps she has always taken delight in making their fears and confusion more painful to them, abusing the power conferred by her position and grievously failing the standards of her profession.

Posted by: ldmjr | September 21, 2008 1:53 PM

Well, well, I see AsperGirl the RNC brownshirt who posts the same lies and hate on every blog here at the WP is hard at work. This person is a Palin-McCain operative who posts stuff from neocon and right wing web sites and wouldn't know or care about the truth if it slapped them across the face.

Posted by: john5750 | September 21, 2008 1:55 PM

Vanity, thy name is woman.

Posted by: aaron | September 21, 2008 1:56 PM

are several turds floating

in the mainstream of AMERICA.

They need to be scooped out and flushed, the stench


is killing our country.


IRAN - CONTRA felons

and PNAC / AEI / HERITAGE / AIPAC / JINSA


are running the whitehouse, monetary decisions and


using the military as their


PRIVATE BUSINESS TOOL....


what happened to BLACK WATER and the dichCHEENIE


what're they doing?

why don't you DAesses know?


are you lazy, or just easily led?

WFT?

Posted by: there | September 21, 2008 1:57 PM

Lynnette,

Congratulations on your independence!

The Dems (libs) take the womens' votes for granted - they do the same thing with the Jewish vote. Hopefully, there will be a little surprise for them in November when the reservation wakes up.

Posted by: sam | September 21, 2008 1:59 PM

someone defines themselves


as a liberal, a democrat, a conservative, or a republican...


they are thinking with their "little head,"


electing someone to run the country, set laws and spend


$TRILLIONS$ of mutha fxxxing DOLLARS


is not a spectator sport that has no real world consequences...


we SHOULD BE ELECTING THE BEST MANAGERS


not the best spinners.


And voting spite is voting stupid.


CONGRESS, passes laws, and spends $TRILLIONS$ of our dollars on what it


wants to......you had better understand that when you vote. Is the one you picked going to do a good job managing?


Or are you voting "your emotions" aka "your little head"


CIA involvement with the Republican party needs to be punished.


Robert M. Gates should be tried for treason.

SEARCH on:

October Surprise, Carter, Russia, Paris, Robert M. Gates, George H.W. Bush, William Casey

it's a felony and a FEDERAL OFFENSE perps, and you should do the time, and or be_executed.

thanks so much.


SEARCH on BUSH CRIME FAMILY


they'll still be there no matter who is president


John Negroponte, Michael Chertoff, Mike McConnely....and other high profile appointments that the rest of


you don't have the intelligence to understand....most of you think with your little heads.

.

Posted by: when | September 21, 2008 2:01 PM

The idea of any woman electing a woman who would force their daughter to bear a child if raped, or to bear the chid themselves if raped as a "blessing from god" just makes my head spin. You people are too full of yourselves to see what you are doing and who you are supporting, all for the sake of making some I AM WOMAN HEAR ME ROAR bs statement.

Posted by: wow from another female | September 21, 2008 2:07 PM

dems / libs....


sounds like you have a brain impediment sam...

why is that?

can't think beyond cliche's or you just use them to lead

to false conclusions?

it's called "appeal to emotion,"

a logical fallacy, a lie, a ruse....

your work is a lie as a premise. very rovian...


do you also "take it in the rear"

like other whitehouse hooris?

Posted by: the | September 21, 2008 2:08 PM

Lynnette,

I hope that you are reading the postings
here - especially the personal attacks on your character, career, intelligence - and I think you will permanently switch to the
Republican party.

Posted by: stephanie | September 21, 2008 2:13 PM

As one of those "poor" women, aspergirl I challenge you to live and support a family on the minimum wage....which we are paid for 40 hours of work. Some of us even work 2 minimum wage jobs to survive.Reading your comments brought such anger to my mind. How dare you say that the"poor"... and I think you called us stupud too..women are not worth anything to you. Who do you think cleans up after you,cooks your food at your restuarants,handles your dry cleaning,basically does everything you are too "busy or important to do. And does it at wages less than men recieve...oh I forgot you don't care that MOST women do NOT have pay equity with men. So much for sisterhood of anykind. I guess us "poor" women aren't good enuogh to be on your team.

Posted by: flashlinda | September 21, 2008 2:14 PM

OOH, wearing a Palin button to Whole Paycheck? What's next, white shoes as an October surprise?

It sounds like Ms. Long never played team sports. Or maybe she wasn't passed the ball in the big game and never got over it.

Why is a woman running for office and not winning 'marginalizing'? My ability to vote with my brain not my vagina keeps me from being marginalized. It's this sexism-victim 'woman scorned' attitude that will make some men think "If you can't stand the heat, go BACK in the kitchen." And McCain is at the head of that line, playing right into it, insulting many truly capable Republican women in the process.

Hillary chose to play with the big dogs and did tremendously well. Good on her. I'm embarrassed for the women who feel the need to tarnish her accomplishments by pretending their tantrums are all for her.

Posted by: Mo | September 21, 2008 2:16 PM

a party position

or an ideology as a pejorative has been fostered by

the Republicans and sense the Bush family has had such an influence on the FORMATION of the CIA


they've also allowed and suborned the republican party to using CIA methode and agents in the party agenda...

it's a matter of public record.

the republicans invited the nazis into the party when George H.W. Bush was V.P.


they were invited into the CIA after WWII,


Allen Dulles, the father of the CIA was good friends with George H.W. bushes father...and money laundered the money that Prescott bush was receiving from investments in the Nazi war machine...

the current administration reflects the same values as Prescott Bushes


he invested in the enemies plan because it made him money


regardless of what was good for the country...


McCain embraces that ideology, his very essences screams

__________________me_ too__________________

I want it.


you vote for _that_

you get squat....

look around.....how's the U.S. Economy doing, been doing....

how really stupid and lazy can you be in your thinking before it comes home

that most people are losing their pensions, healthcare and benefits and feeling good about still having a job...

the richest nation on earth.....so where's the money???

missing?

sure it is, uh huh....."it just happened"


when the embezzlers are in charge of the accounting process?

please your stupidity sickens me.

.

Posted by: using | September 21, 2008 2:19 PM

plays


"appeal to emotion"

as her only card.


intelligent discourse is her bain.

.

Posted by: stephanie | September 21, 2008 2:20 PM

Mr. Fisher quotes Miss Long at the end of his article, "I'm not getting back in bed with someone who's just abused me." Having been in therapy myself, I am glad that therapist Long got in bed with the Post and made the front page of Metro. This certainly beats having to wear a Palin button and wandering around Whole Foods wanting to be needed, wanted, hated?

Posted by: Judith Claire | September 21, 2008 2:23 PM

"When a Democrat endorses McCain they're petty and spiteful."


No. When someone endorses anyone for petty and spiteful reasons, they're petty and spiteful.

Posted by: zuzu | September 21, 2008 2:24 PM

let's be honest here...


we live in a set of ecosystems...


there is no mystery, no surprise, unless you count the stupidity of leaders who think with their metaphorical crotches and not with their eyes and minds...

for example: we could have made a deal for the OIL in IRAQ...


but then there wouldn't have been any big money for


Carlyle Group, Bechtel, Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, DynCorp, and others...


and certainly no NON COMPETE CONTRACTS AWARDED eh ???


so bushCO and CRONYs and COMPLICIT CONGRESS, creates a situation which will drain the nations economy at the very moment when the worlds populations are reaching points that will tip entire regions into famine....


these rich kids, who trash talk anything standing in their way...


could get away with it 100 years ago...the land could withstand their lies.

it's not possible any more.


We need leaders that do not pander to families or the corporatocracy.


The US Economy is the only REAL,

NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.....that we face.

The Global Economy could use a good example of how to treat leaders who are ruthless in pursuit of personal gain at the expense of their citizens.


It would be good to see some whitehouse, executive branch members


brought down low, tried for treason and executed publicly....it would give AMERICANs courage...and renewed hope in democratic principal...


remove the fear, and the cowardice in office and stop the destruction of our country's values...


remove these scum from having an effect on our lives,


take out the trash....arrest them before they can pardon each other...


criminal charges would be sufficient.


act


today.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2008 2:30 PM

I'm a woman with the reproductive equipment to prove it. However, I vote based on what's between a person's ears, not what's between a person's legs.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2008 2:48 PM

Congratulations Lynette. I also inhabited liberal space, supported NOW and NARAL.

Initially these were liberating moments for me. But as time went on, I discovered that my right to think independently and critically was constantly monitored and disciplined. I wasn't free, I was just counted.

One big change for me: in the old days, I was used to thinking about abortion in political terms. It had to do with my personal power. I was ignorant of the science of the human embryo and the developing fetus.

When I began thinking scientifically, the issue then became moral, not political. Do I really have a right to take the life of an innocent human being?

I broke into new territory. The world changed for me - at first gradually, then as I acquired confidence, significantly.

Good luck on your moment of liberation. None of us know where it will lead you - perhaps not where it led me. But the freedom you represent is a treasure.

Posted by: True Liberation | September 21, 2008 2:49 PM

It is truly worth a read. Please take a moment and consider what he is saying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?

jerryrubin

This is a good piece. I think it highlights why people are feeling so hopeless and enraged with this election. Our only two choices are Obama or Palin--two grossly underqualified candidates. We've been left with no good choice in a year when choosing a good leader did indeed seem extremely important.

Posted by: IH16 | September 21, 2008 2:51 PM

Aspergirl cut and pasted:

"Obama’s commitment to federally mandated pay equity ... seems to have eluded his United States Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make."


When you can show us that female staffers received less pay for equal work, get back to us.

Oh, you can't?

Posted by: ropeswing | September 21, 2008 2:53 PM

Funny, she concludes by talking about by making a comparison to abused women.
Funny, because if she truly believes Palin is a woman with "integrity" (those were her words), then Ms Long, and any other woman who supports Palin, must think it is a-OK to bill rape victims for the forensic exam kits the police collect after they report the rape.
One of the first acts as mayor of Wasilla was to approve this new billing policy. Then, when confronted on it a few weeks ago, Palin lied and said she knew nothing about it. Yet there in the public record is her signature on the budget memo approving it. Some integrity.
Ms. Long, we must now assume, believes, like Palin, that all women who get raped must have done something to deserve it. Otherwise, why bill them for a rape exam? You're both a disgrace to your gender.

Posted by: shank | September 21, 2008 3:02 PM

Lynette Long, THANK YOU for speaking for so many of us!

Obama trashed Hillary until he realize he needs her to fight against Sarah.


Women, WAKE UP! Stop the bickering among us. To get respect for ourselves, we must respect and support ourselves first.

I am tired of all those great speeches and promises. They are all talks and nothing gets done. It is not what you know, but what you get done! WE NEED SARAH PALIN TO GET THINGS DONE IN WASHINGTON!


Sarah Palin, GO GIRL!

Please visit http://thenewagenda.net (The New Agenda, through its members and partner organizations, seeks to advance women’s rights.)

Posted by: Lynn | September 21, 2008 3:03 PM

People voted for Bush because they could relate to him,and imagine having that beer with him. They got Cheney and the whole Republican machine. You're not voting for a person but an administration.

As a woman, I've always liked Hillary - till she started campaigning. I thought she fought dirty - repeatedly. I found it disgusting. How a person campaigns says a lot about how they will lead.

Posted by: Sally | September 21, 2008 3:16 PM

Lynette,
Good for you! What a brilliant example of a thinking woman...cut your nose to spite your face and when Bush 44 wins we shall see about the Supreme Court. You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion but here it seems you are not so much FOR McCain as you are against Obama/the Dems.

Wow! I always knew there were people like this around but to have one profiled is truly enlightening. Way to go Lynette! and maybe Pres. Palin can appoint you Agriculture Secretary since you shop at Whole Foods.

Posted by: Lynette | September 21, 2008 3:21 PM

I pity Long. But she's welcome to keep wallowing in her delusional daze, and her delusional belief that she's somehow "stickin' it to The Man" - literally. Nobody cares as much as she's deluding herself to believe they do.

Posted by: roje | September 21, 2008 3:22 PM

Once again WaPo writer tries to undermine the facts. It is clear that Ms. Long truly likes Gov. Palin as she was quoted a few times in this article as saying that Palin was "real", "well loved by Alaskans", and "has integrity", ect. Yes, she's livid with the Democrats but she has found a team she likes better than Obama. Ms. Long is also correct in saying that no president is going to take choice away from women. An overturning of Roe wouldn't take choice away, it would redefine the reason for legalized abortion. A president will not change choice no matter what their views are on abortion.
I truly believe that if McCain or Palin were idealistically in substantial opposition to Ms. Long, she would not be willing to join the McCain/Palin team.
As an independent who has voted both Dem and Rep in every election (never swing the party lever) I am proud of those who refuse to be partisan. Thank you Ms. Long.

Posted by: 1rap | September 21, 2008 3:22 PM

It is absurd to expect any thinking person to agree on every position on every issue of a political party. One may agree with the pro choice stance of Democrats and yet vote McCain because of his courage, greater experience and proven ability to secure support from Democrats. No wonder Hillary supporters have ample justification to vote Republican when they see a woman on the ticket. Unlike Democrats who keep talking, Republicans have actually put women and blacks in positions of power. No wonder the voter has already discounted most of Obama's empty rhetoric. Otherwise why should the polls be so close?

Posted by: Espi | September 21, 2008 3:30 PM

For every woman like Ms. Long who is thinking with her reproductive organs, there are three others who are using their brains. Enough!

Obama-Biden'08

Posted by: Dominique | September 21, 2008 3:39 PM

This feeling that women were screwed by Obama's selection would be more convincing if no or few women voted for Obama. Clinton was marginally stronger among white women, especially older white women, but large numbers of women, including older white women, felt that Obama was the better candidate.

If Hillary were so obviously the better candidate, why could she not obtain an overwhelming majority of the female vote? And given her failure to do so, who is it precisely that "screwed" Hillary?

Posted by: drossless | September 21, 2008 3:42 PM

They say that Psychologists become cuckoos themselves, because they never cure a patient & session after session hearing the patients, soon makes them one too. Ms. Long has her anger misplaced. She has a rebellious 15/16 year old's mind/attitude in an over weight 60+ year old body. Her "in your face" attitude is proverbially cutting the nose to spite the face.
I too would have preferred Obama picking Hillary as running mate. He didn't. In the grand scheme of things, things don't always happen they way you want. You can't pay me enough to vote for McCain/Palin ticket. They have nothing in common wth me exepting that Sarah has a plumbing system inside her that is similar to mine. McCain didn't pick Sarah for love of women (yeah he loves pretty women- in a different way). The panderer-in-chief selected her to get conservative & women's votes.
To those who feel insulted because Hillary is not on the ticket, voting for McCain is a worse insult. He is notorious for sexist jokes. He joked in 1998/99 that Chesey was ugly because she was fathered by Janet Reno. That alone would put me off. I believe in bad "karma" & pay back. The very next year he had to face humiliation from Bush campaign, followed by melanoma & surgery & now his face is more "ugly" than Chelsey's was. Chelsey has grown into a very beautiful woman. Those who love/like Hillary owe this much to her that they should not vote for McCain for his mean joke, at the expense of her child.
And to Ms. Long, this much misplaced anger is not good. Go to a good psychologist/psychiatrist & get some help.

Posted by: Saroja | September 21, 2008 3:51 PM

If Barack Obama loses, it may well be because he made a critical mistake in passing over for the vice presidential nomination not only Hillary Clinton but several superbly qualified Democratic women governors, particularly Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and legislators such including New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney who, in striking contrast to the Democratic nominee for Vice President Joseph Biden, has been a tireless fighter not only for women's rights but also against credit card abuses and similar to Sarah Palin corrupt oil leasing practices. This provides additional evidence that sexist allegations of Hillary Clinton's backers over her recent unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination were not unfounded and also adds one more fact to the many obstacles against women's progress detailed in Maloney's recent book "Rumors of Our Progress Had Been Greatly Exaggerated: Why Women's Lives Aren't Getting Any Easier". It is hard to believe that a woman better than Biden was not selected

Posted by: George N. Spitz | September 21, 2008 3:59 PM

Ms.Long is appalling. I don't know what would be worse, the idea she is just playing at something that is deadly serious or that is she not playing.

I am supporting Obama for lots of reasons, but a primary one is the US Supreme Court and not just because of abortion rights. I guess Ms. Long cares not a whit about all the other issues that affect our lives that the Court rules on. I guess constitutional liberties in general and keeping a check on executive power matter not a whit to her. Justice appointments are for life and I don't want McCain making them. As for abortion, Ms. Long may be correct that there would be a revolt if Roe v. Wade were overturned. But that revolt would not stop the AUTOMATIC implementation of already existing laws banning abortion in virtually all cases in many states. These existing laws (and others being crafted)are ready to go into effect the moment Roe v. Wade is overturned and the issue is "returned to the states" But Ms. Long doesn't give a damn. She lives in DC, which is unlikely to ban abortion. So if there are states across the Deep South or the Midwest etc. where poor women cannot exercise their reproductive rights without traveling hundreds or thousands of miles with money they don't have, Ms. Long is happy to tell them to await a revolution that will not come for them. She already will have blood on her hands supporting a Iraq warmonger. She may have additional blood on her hands from a future return to back alleys in a majority of states. And all for what? Because like a petulant child she is miffed that Hillary Clinton didn't win. Ms. Clinton shows a lot more class than Ms. Long.

Posted by: Cala | September 21, 2008 4:00 PM

Long is an idiot who is so hungry for attention that she doesn't even see she's being used.

Nothing new, though; we have plenty of idiots in this country -- witness the last eight years.

Posted by: Marina | September 21, 2008 4:07 PM

How stupid can Long be....payback? Apparently her life is too banal and a new shade of lipstick isn't going to help.

Posted by: Anasound | September 21, 2008 4:07 PM

This isn't even to mention her attempt to justify support for Palin. Clinton is Einstein compared to Palin, yet all that Ms. Long appears to care about is that Palin has female genitalia.

I suggest that anyone who needs to be reminded how clueless Palin is read the Post editorial "Hiding in Plain Sight" today, which has quotes from her on the financial crisis. But of course Ms. Long thinks it is ok to put this ditsy person a heartbeat from the presidency on a ticket with a man whose lucidity is at best intermittent, a warmonger who can't even keep the players straight in the Middle East and doesn't even appear to be aware of who the Spanish are and what NATO is.

Posted by: cala | September 21, 2008 4:08 PM

When you can show us that female staffers received less pay for equal work, get back to us.

Posted by: ropeswing | September 21, 2008 2:53 PM

Professioanl women are less interested in less pay for equal work than blue collar women are. They are more interested in not being banished to the low-paying, low-value jobs.

Barack Obama has men in higher positions and women in the lower ones.

Again, your perspective is one important to low-class and poor people.

Obama's pay and Roe v. Wade values are more relevant to women who are urban, low class and poor/ignorant. Less relevant to professional and executive women. And certainly the belittling treatment and marginalization is consistent with a lack of regard for the professional, executive woman.

Why didn't he pick Hillary Clinton as his VP, by the way?

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 21, 2008 4:08 PM

Women like Lynette Long prove that stupid chauvinistic thinking isn't just for men. She can spin her reasoning any way she wants, but it's still ugly -- she's ignoring the male candidates because of their chromosomes and choosing to vote for Palin for no other reason than she's a woman. Policies, experience, philosophies, what Palin would do or not do for women's rights... nah, none of that factors into her decision. I have zero respect for someone like Long. She's as narrow-minded as someone who isn't voting for Obama simply because he's black.

Posted by: DogBitez | September 21, 2008 4:15 PM

When we have people in this country voting for such empty-headed reasons (such as they will only cast a vote for a candidate because he is Black, or she is a woman, or the candidate is none of the above), then they get exactly what they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us -- who actually vote for people based on their ability to lead this country -- may get stuck with these irrational voters' choice! I wish people would get past the biology of these candidates. This woman Long obviously doesn't think about the bigger issues -- economy, national security, how to get our brave young soldiers back home to their families, how to improve the lives of every American, especially the elderly and children -- and that means that she doesn't care about her country. How could anyone claim to care about their country when his/her intended objective is to only vote for a woman?!?!?!? Thankfully, I honestly believe that most voters are far smarter than this woman Long. I hope!

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 21, 2008 4:19 PM

"Lynnette, I hope that you are reading the postings here - especially the personal attacks on your character, career, intelligence - and I think you will permanently switch to the Republican party."

Posted by: stephanie | September 21, 2008 2:13 PM

The Democratic party is going to see a split this year, I think, where professional, executive and independent-minded women are finding there is a poor environment toward their interests in the party, and where they find the poor-woman issues that the Democrats focus on are not so compelling that they want their own vote to be held hostage by these poor-womans' issues any longer.

The issues of Roe v. Wade are about federal guarantee of easy access to in-state abortions which benefits poor/ignorant women more than educated, women who can find their way to a minor procedure in another state if they have to. The kinds of pay issues the Ledbetter law related to were the kind blue collar workers are concerned with, not professional and executive women, who sign specific kinds of work contracts.

The Democratic party is just not the place for executive and professional women. It now seems almost completely oriented toward poor women's issues and hostile and disrespectful toward elite women who aren't part of the left-wing liberal arts culture, like Clinton.

Do the Dems really expect its professional and executive women to take the "shut up and get on board" order, because of threats that a couple of agenda items that mainly affect poor urban women might be vulnerable? If you're going to hold people's votes hostage in a single-issue captive manner, it has to be issues that are relevant to them. If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, that doesn't really affect me that much, nor would it really affect any woman who can arrange a few days' travel on the Internet.

I think the Dems will see a bleeding of older professional and executive women toward Republicans this year.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 21, 2008 4:21 PM

So judging from Ms. Long's blog, she appears to think McCain is some kind of feminist. This is the man who called his wife a c*** in public a few years ago when she made a joke about his thinning hair, who deliberately sought out to humiliate a teenage girl (Chelsea Clinton) with a homophobic slur, who deserted his damaged first wife for a rich heiress. Then, out of all the female politicians in the country, the only one he can find suitable for the VP slot is someone who parrots GOP slogans like a telemarketer, someone who fought the cronyism in her state's government so she could insert her own group of cronies.

Posted by: Me | September 21, 2008 4:21 PM

When Clinton supporters argued that she was discriminated against, Obama's feminist supporters came back with, "Speaking as women and feminists, we're not against any woman as president, just THIS woman."

Well, now they are speaking out as women and feminists, against another woman, for entirely different reasons. There were two powerful, popular examples of leadership woman before us this year.

If not these women, which woman?

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 21, 2008 4:24 PM

"Long is the kind of person who is drawn to a fire, she grants that. She says she wore her Palin button to the Whole Foods on 14th Street NW just to see if she'd get a rise out of the assembled crunchies. No one would even look her in the eye, she reports."

... Maybe no one cared that Long was wearing a Palin button. Maybe the people at the Whole Foods just weren't interested in Long's choice of a candidate, and probably didn't notice Long in the first place. Long definitely sounds like a pathetic attention-seeker. I'm glad that people ignored her. Sad. Very sad.

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 21, 2008 4:25 PM

"Poor urban women" Aspergirl? Try rural women. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, women in dozens of states across the country will have no place to go. How nice for you that it wouldn't be an issue with your ability to buy tickets on the Internet. It is clear from your post you do not care anything about anyone other than the elite and that you somehow think this is a virtue.

Guess what, I am a well-paid professional woman and I don't feel held hostage by policies that exhibit care about the poor, the environment, the war, etc. Perhaps if you set down Ayn Rand for a moment, you might see an interconnected world out there.

Posted by: cala | September 21, 2008 4:29 PM

Concern for rural women? Don't make me laugh. You are problably the first one to
call them trailer park trash.

Posted by: henry | September 21, 2008 4:32 PM

I find it surprising that no one has engaged in a discussion of how it disadvantages women, who are a majority, to as a voting block be marginalized in a liberal party.

Women would enjoy much more power and a higher place on agendas if they were a swing vote, as the attention paid to women this year by Republicans attest.

One reason why John McCain was limited in his choices among prominent Republican women this year was that so many of them were pro-choice, which the evangelical base, already demoralized by the Bush Administration's record, choked on. While at first blush this appears negative, what is the other side of the coin?

So many prominent Republican women are pro-choice. You don't have to check your pro-choice stance at the door when you enter the Republican party if you're a woman. If there were an influx of more women into the Republican party's center, like Reagan Democrats were, there would simply be more pro-choice Republicans.

Women are a majority, not a minority. It doesn't benefit women to be marginalized as a captive vote locked up in a single party. As we saw over and over this year, it was very easy and reflexive for Democratic officials to dismiss the threat of cross-over votes upset about Clinton's treatment, by saying "Roe v. Wade". That simple mantra covers a whole range of marginalization that includes having women's needs lower on the agenda than than those of far more marginal populations, when women are more than 50 percent of the population, own many businesses and head up many families.

It's better to leave the marginalized role and the patronizing, belittling environment of the Democratic party toward women in the center and their unmet needs.

It's better to enter the enemy territory and, perhaps, help the Republicans moderate their platform to make room at their center for women in order to command the swing vote, than to remain on the Democratic plantation.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 21, 2008 4:34 PM

And you base this on what henry? I am from a rural area originally and I have never used that term in my life or anything similar. I guess that like the Randian Aspergirl you cannot imagine supporting public policies that don't directly benefit yourself, or worrying about the consequences of policy shifts on classes other than your own. Maybe you could get the Post's Date Lab to set you up. Sounds like a match.

Posted by: cala | September 21, 2008 4:39 PM

"Poor urban women" Aspergirl? Try rural women. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, women in dozens of states across the country will have no place to go. How nice for you that it wouldn't be an issue with your ability to buy tickets on the Internet. It is clear from your post you do not care anything about anyone other than the elite and that you somehow think this is a virtue."

Posted by: cala | September 21, 2008 4:29 PM

You know, it's not the Red state Republicans who are mocking the Palin family, their children, their hunting for food and their religion. The inappropriate hilarity at -- what did the CBC commentator call them, "white trash" -- culture of small town Palins hardly attests to the sensibilities of Democratic left-wing liberal women. I'm not one of those hypocritical ivory tower liberal women who felt my head would explode when contemplating what they call a rural small town "white trash" female in the Oval office.

As Ms. Forester de Rothschild pointed out, there's a difference between being well off and educated and being an "elitist". The latter is a state of mind in which you think you're better than others.

These poor women you simultaneously look down on and sneer at while you presume to know what laws they need better than they do, THEY would want YOU to vote for Sarah Palin, not Barack Obama.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 21, 2008 4:40 PM

So much about Long's attitude is sad. Perhaps the worst is the assertion that Palin has integrity. If Long was reading the news, especially Alaska sources, it would quickly become obvious to her that the only, repeat only, integrity Palin has is the unwavering commitment to promote herself. She has lied repeatedly about what she has done (Bridge to Nowhere is only one example - she shifted the money from one BTN to another, which coincidentally benefitted her tiny hometown), and about what she will do (from "I welcome an investigation" to refusing to cooperate).

Palin believes that the victim of an incestuous rape should have to carry to term, to be reminded every second of the horror of her violation.

Palin believes that the Iraq war was a mission from her god, in faith healing, and that god speaks directly to her. (The videos of her speaking are readily available.) She promotes foreign policy that almost certainly would lead to some version of war with Russia. She told a Jewish group that Israel should move its capital to Jerusalem, which would be a match to a tinder box.

As many here have said, she's not ready to be governor. let alone anywhere on a national stage.

Posted by: Alaskan William | September 21, 2008 4:43 PM

Aspergirl wrote:

When you can show us that female staffers received less pay for equal work, get back to us.

Posted by: ropeswing | September 21, 2008 2:53 PM

Professioanl women are less interested in less pay for equal work than blue collar women are. They are more interested in not being banished to the low-paying, low-value jobs.

Barack Obama has men in higher positions and women in the lower ones.

Again, your perspective is one important to low-class and poor people.

--------------------

It isn't "my perspective" at all. It's the perspective put out by the article you cut and pasted without question.

Posted by: ropeswing | September 21, 2008 4:44 PM

Anyone who thinks that the Republicans are out there championing women's rights simply because John McCain made a sloppy choice of Palin simply so he could appear "progressive," just isn't paying attention. If the McCain campaign really thought that Sarah Palin was worthy of becoming President of the United States, they wouldn't constantly shield her from the press as though she is some delicate flower that might get bruised if the press gets too near to her. If McCain & Co. really want to make the case that they're ready to have Palin step into the Oval Office, then let her stand on her own two feet. McCain and his campaign are so disingenuous about the issue of combating sexism that it is actually laughable. McCain himself has used Palin in the most absurd way since this pick (i.e., making up lies about "lipstick on a pig"!), and now they want credit for being pro-feminism? Puh-leeze!!!!!!!

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 21, 2008 4:46 PM

My guess is that Obama didn't pick Hillary Clinton because we'd have Bill Clinton back in the loop, and he doesn't want his presidency to be the Clintons' third term. If Bill weren't part of the package, she might have been more acceptable.

But bear in mind that she has plenty of baggage of her own. If she were the VP nominee, the campaign would be utterly dominated 24/7 by anti-Clinton attacks from the right. Obama's message would be lost in the shouting.

Posted by: John | September 21, 2008 4:47 PM

Nice try AsperGirl. As I already mentioned, I am not voting for Obama primarily on the abortion issue or any "women's issue" as they are usually defined. I care about the composition of the Supreme Court as much for First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, habeas corpus, Guantanamo, executive power etc. decisions as about reproductive rights issues. You may be right about more poor rural women supporting Palin. My issue with you is you suggested the Democratic Party is somehow offending professional women by having policies regarding the concerns of poor women (urban or rural). I think that is the case only of Randians such as yourself. There are plenty of professional women whose world isn't that narrow.

Posted by: cala | September 21, 2008 4:54 PM

You go girl! Am with you 100%+ and there are many others who will follow suit. Loved seeing the Dem. Party knocked on its rear with the announcement of Palin - yeah!

Posted by: WillNotSupportTheCorruptDNC | September 21, 2008 4:57 PM

Honestly, I would just prefer that Long walk down P Street naked to Whole Foods if she needs attention this badly.

Thanks Alaska William for your comments. People should also check out the famous Wasilla email circulating the blogosphere on how Palin ran her town.

Posted by: Me | September 21, 2008 5:01 PM

Cala, I have never spoken to any women from a rural area that expend as much hot air as you do. You were probably born in New Jersey.

Posted by: henry | September 21, 2008 5:08 PM

A number of women (professors, etc.) who have never voted for a Republican tell me they just cannot support Obama -- and will be voting for McCain: "a first."

Posted by: jake | September 21, 2008 5:09 PM

Sorry to disappointment you Henry, but then I doubt very much you know many rural women or you wouldn't be so quick to insult them. In any case, I am from a small town (fewer than 3500) in Indiana.

Posted by: cala | September 21, 2008 5:13 PM

By the way Aspergirl, wherever Murdock got his figures, it wasn't from a site like Legistorm, that posts the salaries, job descriptions, and pay periods for all legislative staffers.

http://www.legistorm.com/blog/obama-s-alleged-pay-gap.html

According to the report on Obama staff salaries for the first six months of this fiscal year, the second highest salary in his office was paid to a woman. Of the top ten salary earners among regular staffers, four are women. And of the top twenty salary earners among regular staffers for the full six month period, eight are women.

That means 40% of his regular staffers in the top salary positions are women. You are simply wrong in saying "Obama has men in higher positions and women in the lower ones."

http://www.legistorm.com/member/76/Sen_Barack_Obama/48/salary/desc.html

Many of the lower figures reflect salaries for seasonal or part time work, which neither Aspergirl nor Murdock bother to break down.

Of the 39 part time or lower paid positions , 20 are held by women and 19 by men.

Posted by: ropeswing | September 21, 2008 5:13 PM

This is interesting. Maybe Marc Fisher has been had. If you go to Long's blog, she calls the Obama-Biden ticket the most dangerous in history and brings up other issues that repeat the racially encoded charges we are all familiar with....

Marc you've been had.

Posted by: Me | September 21, 2008 5:19 PM

Cala,

It is libs like you who do the rural bashing. If you are from that small town in Indiana, I doubt that they are missing you.

Posted by: henry | September 21, 2008 5:26 PM

Me said:

"This is interesting. Maybe Marc Fisher has been had. If you go to Long's blog, she calls the Obama-Biden ticket the most dangerous in history and brings up other issues that repeat the racially encoded charges we are all familiar with....

Marc you've been had."


I had a feeling she was happy for the chance to drive traffic to her blog. I went ahead and looked anyway. My word, how does this woman claim to be a professional?!

The funniest part was the comment section with all the sockpuppets raving about how "Brilliant!" her stuff is.

In the end, sad.

Posted by: zuzu | September 21, 2008 5:29 PM

wow henry, you really don't know rural places. I am guessing suburban boy. Fairfax?

Posted by: cala | September 21, 2008 5:34 PM

Any woman who voted for McCain share's his views on women:
1. Cheat on your wife
2. Cheat on your wife and your mistress
3. Marry your mistress for lust and access to fortune
4. Physical and emotional abuse wives
5. Call your wife a c*nt in public and want her to appear as a cheap ho at a biker's rally
6. Maintains close relation to friend who said that a woman who is being raped might as well lay down and enjoy it
7. Bully female staffers and colleagues
8. Women worth less than men and should be paid less
9. A woman's place is in the kitchen because they have no rights including right over their own bodies

10. Chelsea Clinton is a result of a homosexual union between Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno

Posted by: Songbird McCain | September 21, 2008 6:07 PM

This woman reminds me of a disaffected 17 year old, spray-painting swastikas on the sides of synagogues, because it seems to her immature mind like the best way to poke a stick in the eye of authority. I hope her family is able to get her some help.

Posted by: Lisa in New York | September 21, 2008 6:20 PM

She obviously knows that Palin has everything that Clinton doesn't. Class, accomplishments, integrity, morals, and a husband who is faithful and doesn't prey on women. Smart lady.
She also lnows that Obama has no accomplisments, no governing experience and no leadership ability. Again, very smart lady.

Posted by: LarryG62 | September 21, 2008 6:28 PM

It is the duty of every citizen to vote for the candidate he/she thinks is best for the country. And Long believes that Sarah Palin is? According to the her:
"Palin is likable, popular and has integrity. She's a person who will listen."

likability, and popularity has nothing to do with her being good for the country. likability is subjective, Palin's popularity is tanking like a rock, and her unfavorability is lowest of all four candidates and is actually negative. So neither applies. And integrity? Well all politicians lie a little bit, but whatever is known about Palin is either a straight lie, or at best a distortion.

I can really understand someone deciding not to vote for Obama, but a Hillary supporter voting for McCain is just an idiot. And Hillary herself put it best, "Were you in it for the people and the issues or were you in it for me?" Long clearly was in it not even for Hillary, but just for the gender.

She can vote for whomever she chooses. But to justify it somehow is just outrageous. There are idiots of all sorts, and if Obama wants to win he has to find the votes somewhere else.

A few other points:
1. Why did Hillary loose? She organized poorly in most of the smaller/red states, and the way the Democrats assign delegates hurt her badly. She underestimated its importance, and that was her fault. Too much internal bickering also made her campaign very ineffective. All this also points to her own inability to run the campaign. Florida and Michigan also hurt, but that was decided long before the first vote was cast, and Hillary agreed with the rules.

2. Some other postings have pointed to an article by Deroy Murdoch that apparently [according to LegiStorm's website] Obama pays women about 83 cents for every dollar paid to men. When I went to the LegiStorm website they refer to the Murdoch article and say that they are making no such claim. Its not equal pay for all employees, its equal pay for equal work. The higher advisors are paid more than the bottom tier.

3. So why does Obama not have as many women in the top ranks as McCain? Very simple, McCain initially was the most progressive in the Republican side, and so he attracted more women from the beginning. That McCain has now sold his soul is another story. All the top women on the Democratic side signed up with the Hillary campaign, so Obama's campaign is already staffed well. And he wouldn't be having a staff shakeup for no good reason.

Posted by: thomas_jefferson | September 21, 2008 6:31 PM

Once again poor AsperGirl's batteries in her personal private toys have died and she is frustrated and tense. She is just taking it out on us until the stores open tomorrow and she can replace her batteries and ease her tensions. Maybe Lynette can help her out in the meantime.

Posted by: EverReady | September 21, 2008 6:41 PM

Wow she actually thinks she had that much power to influence McCain that lo and behold he chose Palin? If she believes that I have a bridge to nowhere I want to sell. Along with a country heading in that direction.

Posted by: AverageJane | September 21, 2008 6:47 PM

Why does the democratic party keep marginalizing women?

Posted by: AsperGirl
***************************
Why do you keep pretending that you care about women's issues, you racist hosebeast?

Posted by: put down the cookies, asperfat... | September 21, 2008 6:58 PM

Perfect artcle. Hits it on the head. Not to late for Biden to step aside and let Hillary take the reins and BO to show he can reach across in his own party! Let alone acros the isle or world. His bickering with the Clintons has cost him big time and the press is trying as hard as they can to ignor that fact. This article is on the money.

Posted by: Tom | September 21, 2008 7:01 PM

"If a candidate treated Obama the way Obama treated Clinton, there would be calls to throw him out of the party.

democratic party--
no racism, but more sexism than anyone can stomach." -Anonymous

Yes indeed. Certainly more than I, a life-long Democrat, can stomach, which is why I'm voting for McCain.

Posted by: california | September 21, 2008 7:07 PM

As a woman from Arizona, it is so hard for me to believe that any woman could turn to McCain based upon the accusation that Obama conducted himself in a sexist manner during the Democratic Primary. Those making the accusation fail to cite a single instance in which Obama was anything but respectful to Hillary's historic run. He is not responsible for the media or anyone else who may have disrespected Hillary.

Let's not forget that it was McCain who used the 'C' word when referring to his wife. It was McCain who voted against the equal pay act for women. It was McCain who selected a woman for her gender and not for her accomplishments. And, it was McCain who admitted that he knows absolutely nothing about the economy, which will surely have an impact on all of our families.

As Americans, we cannot allow the republicans to continue to divide us based upon race, gender, and personality. Equally important, we must think with our brains - not our body parts.

OBAMA/BIDEN

Posted by: ArizonaWoman | September 21, 2008 7:21 PM

let's be honest here...


we live in a set of ecosystems...


there is no mystery, no surprise, unless you count the stupidity of leaders who think with their metaphorical crotches and not with their eyes and minds...


for example: we could have made a deal for the OIL in IRAQ...


but then there wouldn't have been any big money for


Carlyle Group, Bechtel, Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, DynCorp, and others...


and certainly no NON COMPETE CONTRACTS AWARDED eh ???


so bushCO and CRONYs and COMPLICIT CONGRESS, creates a situation which will drain the nations economy at the very moment when the worlds populations are reaching points that will tip entire regions into famine....


these rich kids, who trash talk anything standing in their way...


could get away with it 100 years ago...the land could withstand their lies.


it's not possible any more.


We need leaders that do not pander to families or the corporatocracy.


The US Economy is the only REAL,

NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.....that we face.

The Global Economy could use a good example of how to treat leaders who are ruthless in pursuit of personal gain at the expense of their citizens.


It would be good to see some whitehouse, executive branch members


brought down low, tried for treason and executed publicly....it would give AMERICANs courage...and renewed hope in democratic principal...


remove the fear, and the cowardice in office and stop the destruction of our country's values...


remove these scum from having an effect on our lives,


take out the trash....arrest them before they can pardon each other...


criminal charges would be sufficient.


act


today.


.

Posted by: situtional beauty..... | September 21, 2008 7:25 PM

Lynette, I hope you are laughing at all of the ridiculous comments by the many immature flying ignorami who regularly post about the presidential election. There must be brigades of professional Obama posters all over the internet this year. They are not interested in civil dialogue, and they only post here to try to intimidate others. They remind me of PETA members in their rabid defense of the Anointed One.

I've read that the Obama campaign uses legions of his faithful to pose as random readers of all election-related articles, and that they fill the reply/comment sections with their pathetic vitriol in an attempt to appear as if there is endless popular support for His Awesomeness. That's not hard to believe given the wretched excesses of their desperate posts. There could be multiple monikers used by one poster alone... again, not a stretch of the imagination.

I was for Hillary, but I will not vote for a slick opportunist with no portfolio just because he is my party's nominee.

Methinks there are a whole lotta peeps like you and me out there. :-)

Posted by: YesNoMaybe213 | September 21, 2008 7:30 PM

Lynette Long obviously has some major anger management issues.

Can someone recommend a good therapist to her? Or is this an instance of therapist, counsel thyself?

Posted by: Sigmund Freud | September 21, 2008 7:31 PM

Wow. I'm a woman and I'd hate to have such an idiot for a doctor.

Posted by: ccatmoon | September 21, 2008 7:39 PM

It sounds like Long just votes based on the sex of candidates. This is just one example of how Obama is a poor decision maker and has cost himself votes. I'm sure most Hillary voters will still vote for him, but, he'll lose a bunch of their votes due to no shows. He also lost the majority of white rural America do to his comments that are perceived racist by them about clinging to guns and religion. He should have just yelled REDNECKS when he made such a stupid statement. He selected Biden who is costing him the majority of the Catholic vote because he speaks without thinking. Biden's statements that were false according to Catholic teachings made him look foolish to Catholics and it shows in recent polls geared toward Catholics. It really doesn't matter what Obama's policies are since he is a flip flopper like Kerry. Early on he set the income level for people to be taxed at 1 million then he switched it to 250,000 and now his campaign is saying 200,000. He said he wouldn't drill. Then all of the sudden he sees 70% of the US is for drilling and he flip flops on that. This guy even resorts to finishing statements saying "That's cool" with an ebonics tone. Doesn't he realize that he is trying to get the white vote to win. I can go on and on about poor decisions. At the end of the day his only experience is a community organizer and he is not capable of making sound decisions for our country.

Posted by: Independentthinker4 | September 21, 2008 7:54 PM

So YesNoMaybewhatever, who I guess may be Lynette since you don't accord us individuality. Are you voting for McCain who says the woman he married is a c*** or are you sitting the election out or writing in Clinton?

Posted by: Me | September 21, 2008 7:59 PM

PS: called her that in public no less. Definitely, what a feminist.

Posted by: Me | September 21, 2008 8:00 PM

As a feminist, what I don't understand is why Clinton supporters think she should be the nominee when she didn't win clearly in the primaries. Are we looking for chivalry or what?

I wanted to vote for her, it would have been exciting to vote for the first viable woman for president, but I couldn't get past her support for the war, her hawkishness in general, and her disdain for civil liberties. The woman sponsored legislation to ban flag burning! after the SC ruled twice that it was protected political speech, period. She's a lawyer for god's sake. She should understand the Constitution, but on that and on other issues, she clearly does not agree with the Bill of Rights and I can't get past that. Her campaign also wouldn't answer questions on her contradictory statements about her early support for the war. At one point she said she didn't realize she was authorizing an invasion! She's not an idiot. So she was lying.

But I really hesitated over the touchscreen. It was the longest time I ever took to vote. I am curious if anyone thinks that Clinton would have picked Obama as her VP if she had won.

Posted by: cala | September 21, 2008 8:12 PM

I am a 42 year-old male and I supported Hillary Clinton above Obama because I believed she was the more competent and experienced person. I had reservations about whether we really needed another divisive personality in the White House just now, but as a reformed Republican I can say that pretty much anything the Democrats can provide beats the Republicans these days.

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2008 8:17 PM

Let's face it. There are alot of stupid people in this country. How many people fawned over George Bush for years proudly displaying their "W" stickers and loving Bush because he was "one of them." Lynette Long is no different then every other moron who throws their vote away for mindless, petty superficial reasons. Eight years of Republicans destroying this country yet she's going to keep them in office because the VP candidate has a uterus. Unreal.

Posted by: DW | September 21, 2008 8:18 PM

No problem..everyone is free to support whom he or she pleases! However, can someone give me an example of how Senator Obama disrespected Senator Clinton? Senator Obama had numerous opportunities to deliver kill shots to Senator Clinton bur he never went there. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, went racial when she had nothing left. I expected that from the GOP but not a fellow Dem. Senator Clinton lost because she ran one of the worse political campaign's ever! African-Americans were in the bag for her until it appeared that she was just running as "Bill's wife"! Obama was a long shot at best.

As for as abortion goes, "Pro-Choice" means that someone has "A Choice". Not that you are going out killing babies. Everyone is for the baby but the baby grows up and needs food, clothing, shelter, college education, etc. Ask yourself are you willing to take that baby and be a provider for at least 18 years? Abortion is a personal "choice" between a woman and her "higher power". DC Metro is pretty liberal, educated, and naive. If Roe is reversed, the decision will than fall to the states. There will be no revolution! There is a very good chance the southern and mid-western states will outlaw abortion. Than you will see the true magnitude of short-sighted voting. It really ironic that the group, white women, that has received the most benefit from Affirmative Action won't vote for a Black guy!

Posted by: dg | September 21, 2008 8:24 PM

YesNoMaybe213 said:

"I've read that the Obama campaign uses legions of his faithful to pose as random readers of all election-related articles, and that they fill the reply/comment sections with their pathetic vitriol in an attempt to appear as if there is endless popular support for His Awesomeness."

-------------------

I think you're thinking of the McCain campaign. They actually award (snicker) "McCain points" for trolling:

http://www.johnmccain.com/ActionCenter/BlogInteract/BlogInteract.aspx

Posted by: zuzu | September 21, 2008 8:24 PM

I love it. All these Obamaniacs who can't stomach the fact that the wrong party had the guts to name a woman to their ticket. All the years of bellyaching about women's rights, and the Dims couldn't pull the trigger! Their guy is an empty suit, but all they can do is splutter and foam at the mouth about the conservative woman on McCain's team. This is great to watch, keep it up, please.

Posted by: Bob | September 21, 2008 8:36 PM

dg, I guess Clinton supporters would say Obama disrespected her by not giving her the VP nod when she came so close to beating him.

But I would agree she and her campaign played the race card and the Obama-is-really-a-Muslim card.

Posted by: cala | September 21, 2008 8:36 PM

Hillary Clinton will be saddened to see these so-called "feminists" quickly betray all their political beliefs, including Roe vs. Wade, just so they can see a female as VP -- no matter how weird, kooky, and unqualified. Hillary deserved better than that kind of betrayal.

Posted by: bodo | September 21, 2008 8:37 PM

We keep hearing about how Obama "abused" Hillary, yet never once is an example provided -- or does beating her in primary after primary constitute abuse in some people's minds? and certainly if they want to get into some sorta shouting match about abuse, there are plenty of examples that originated with the Clintons.

Posted by: eomcmars | September 21, 2008 8:38 PM

So Bob, we're supposed to embrace a reactionary flake like Palin just because we share XX chromosomes and other bits? Nope, sorry. Are you really suggesting Palin was the most qualified GOP woman out there? Wow.

Wow.

Posted by: cala | September 21, 2008 8:39 PM

"McCain hired more women for his senate office than did obama, and they are paid equal to the male staff, unlike obama!

However, obamanite women claim that obama will be better for women?? McCain treats women in the workplace equally, obama DOESN'T! What more do you need to know about the candidates on women issues."
_______________________________________

Cindy McCain joked with her husband about his hair loss and he called her a C*nt in front of five men. He later excused this action by saying it had been a long day.

He made this odious joke about Chelsea Clinton (then a teenager) back in ‘98. Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

He returned from Vietnam, to a wife that had been disfigured by a severe car accident...andstarted having affairs and then abandoned her and their children for Cindy and her $$$.

And THAT is the who Long is getting into bed with in the hopes of having a vagina in the White House. Wow. What a feminist.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2008 8:43 PM

PLEASE! EVERYONE! Stop giving Aspergirl accurate statistics! It will ruin all her efforts at inane blather.

Posted by: PLEASE! | September 21, 2008 8:48 PM

I've hated Obama ever since he won the Illinois Senate seat over Dan Ryan. There is no fact I won't invent, no lie I won't advance to damage Obama.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 21, 2008 8:53 PM

PLEASE, I don't need any valid statistics. As my postings today demonstrate, I'm quite capable of pulling any manner of fake statistics out of my ample rear end.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 21, 2008 8:55 PM

Aspergirl you are a fool...we laugh at how stupid you come across...I would think if you are smart enough to use a computer you would also be smart enough to read all these articles and silly facts to contradict everything you have to say....I personally think you are a paid troll for the McCain Campaign....

BTW it seems that you you need to seek therapy for your Baracknaphobia...Im afraid its totally clinical because only an insane person would want a 3rd Bush Term.

Posted by: Becky | September 21, 2008 9:06 PM

Look AsperGirl is a misguided Randian acolyte, but it is highly unethical to impersonate her. So stop it.

And it was JACK Ryan ya putz, not Dan.

Posted by: cala | September 21, 2008 9:06 PM

Check out "Black protestors heckle Obama at rally" at http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j2B0SbafWmP8MdULXrPlL2tKrY9Q . Barack H_u_s_s_e_i_n obama paid some African-Americans to publicly accuse him of being supported by the KuKluxKlan. The aim is to convince gullible Whites and Asians that Obama has no pro-African agenda.

Racial politics have never gotten this dirty.

If you work for the McCain campaign, then you must investigate this incident. If you can convince even 1 of the protestors to admit -- on television -- that they were secretly supporting Obama, then John McCain will win the presidential race.

I am no fan of McCain. I personally support a Michael-Bloomberg/Sarah Palin ticket.

However, if I must choose between a Black-empowerment racist and a senile ignoramus, I would prefer to see the ignoramus winning the presidential race.

Posted by: sea bass | September 21, 2008 9:06 PM


Hillary Clinton should apologize to this woman for what she did to her

this is why she should have explained there was no path to victory back in March
she knew it

Posted by: Sad | September 21, 2008 9:06 PM

MY Daddy dated strippers.

Posted by: Meghan | September 21, 2008 9:07 PM

need I say more?

Posted by: Sea Bass is an idiot | September 21, 2008 9:08 PM

"However, can someone give me an example of how Senator Obama disrespected Senator Clinton?"

He broke in during one of her victory speeches and when asked about it later said, 'Was someone talking? I didn't hear anyone talking.'
But his policies toward women are more interesting:
He sold himself from day one as a man of God and a man of Christ. He is running on a commitment to people of faith, he spent 90% of his campaign in churches, and if you check his website, you'll see that women's rights and reproductive rights are nowhere to be seen. Instead he has a section called Faith & Family, and this has been true since day one.
His commitment to people of faith: "I will not only maintain but expand Pres. Bush's Faith-based funding intitiative." (A program that is already being challenged by the ACLU and NOW because it has been used by the Catholic Chruch, most notably, to cut off women's access to local resources and to birth control and abortion even though this is a Constitutionally protected right).

And "I will not only maintain but expand the innovative learning techniques set forth in George Bush's No Child Left Behind." (aka, separate but equal gender education based on research that shows girls and boys have different brains and different capacities. For example, girls have no ability to excel at math and science so the public education system is wasting money educating females in these subjects to the detriment of boys who are being moved to remedial classes at a disproportionate rate.)

You may be under the illusion that Clinton made a racist remark but she never went after blacks legislatively to get back at Obama. Yet Obama has had discriminitory policies as central campaign themes since day one, and he's not backed off. Name one religion that views women as equal and then think about why a self-professed man of God is upsetting to Democratic women who've supported this party for their entire lives.

Posted by: IH16 | September 21, 2008 9:12 PM

Hillary Clinton should apologize to this woman for what she did to her this is why she should have explained there was no path to victory back in March she knew it....
===================================
This is why Hillary can kiss 2012 goodbye if god forbid McCain steals this election. She needs to come out and admit there was no sexism that it was just a campaign ploy and STOP THIS NONSENSE....WTF is this woman saying about Barack Obama abusing her? Its more like Bush abused us and she is getting in bed with his older uglier version.

Posted by: Rebecca | September 21, 2008 9:12 PM


rebecca, you rock

Posted by: less sad | September 21, 2008 9:19 PM

IH16, may I please have some of what you are smoking. Are you serious when you write "and if you check his website, you'll see that women's rights and reproductive rights are nowhere to be seen."

What about this for example. Finding it took all of, hum, 2 minutes from an entire section dedicated to women's issues on an official campaign site.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues

"REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE
Supports a Woman's Right to Choose:
Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case."

Posted by: cala | September 21, 2008 9:21 PM

"Sarah has made mistakes, but out of naivete, not out of corruption."

Oh. Well. When you put it like that, she'd make a GREAT president!

How exactly does freely admitting the candidate you support is NAIVE advance the cause of women? "Vote for more women! We may be naive, but at least we're not corrupt!"

You go, girl! Shatter that glass ceiling by proving all the stereotypes to be true!

Posted by: Adam & Naive | September 21, 2008 9:28 PM

IH16,

1) when Obama had cut Clinton speech, she was at her 5th lost in a raw, without conceding his victory, not one single time

2) since when being a woman means being an atheist ?

3) Did you ever read anything about the woman Obama has married ? No education for women in an Obama administration ? where do you take it from, seriously ?

4) the religion that states the men and women are equal and differ only on tradition and education, that need to be changed, is called Baha'i, google it you might learn something

Posted by: Well | September 21, 2008 9:30 PM

Lynette Long is putting her own personal gain and satisfaction above reason and truth. Sadly, so are many other delusional women. I've never been so saddened by my sisters as to see such devotion to anyone purely because of their gender. Would it make any difference if McCain had selected Brittney Spears, Paris Hilton, Anne Coulter, Kathie Griffin or Pamela Anderson? Is it so satisfying to have just ANY woman elected? It makes me shudder to think of what the suffragists had to endure to give women the right to vote, and this is where we've come.

Posted by: Natalia Makarova | September 21, 2008 9:59 PM

Long fell in love with Sarah! What the Hey!! whiteagle38

Posted by: R Juneau | September 21, 2008 10:03 PM

Well said Natalia.I wonder how many there are like Long.

Posted by: Me | September 21, 2008 10:19 PM

Did I read this correctly that this woman is a Psychologist? Well, if that's correct, her clients(I shudder to think if she does have any) should beware of any "advice" she gives them. In fact, if she is what she says she is(a democrat and feminist), then she's the one who certainly is in need of some psychiatic help.

Posted by: Steve | September 21, 2008 10:28 PM

if every day all the people you saw in authority were men

CONDOLEEZZA RICE - Secretary of State?

NANCY PELOSI - Speaker of the House?

TEN FEMALE STATE GOVERNORS? (including Palin of course)

This "it's all men all the time" whine is getting SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO out of date.

Sure, a female President would be nice. But NOT SARAH PALIN.

And there is only one President at a time, and they tend to stick around for four or even eight years. BUT LOWE AND THE PUMAs WANT THEIR PRIZE RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!! THIS MINUTE!!!!!!! or they will throw a tantrum and become COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL!!

Posted by: herzliebster | September 21, 2008 10:36 PM

Sorry, Long, not Lowe.

Posted by: herzliebster | September 21, 2008 10:37 PM

AperGirl commenting on my previous post:

"Well, someone should remind Ms. Long that when you vote your genitals, instead of your brains, eventually you get screwed."

Posted by: Brain Voter | September 21, 2008 1:25 PM

I have 2 responses to that:

First, if that is what she is doing, why should she vote the color of YOUR skin instead of HER gender preference? Why should we vote for an under-qualified narcissist because of the color of your skin?

================

When I said "vote her brains", I meant VOTE HER BRAINS. Did I ever say skin color? BTW, do you assume that everyone supporting Obama must be necessarily black? Think again. Actually looking at your other posts around here, it seems that thinking is far from being one of your best qualities.

Posted by: Brain Voter | September 21, 2008 10:47 PM

My wife and I worked for Kerry in 2004, and contributed money to Clinton this year. But we will not vote for Obama. I will likely vote for McCain -- and my wife is unsure but is leaning that way. Fair minded people have a lot of problems with Obama's candidacy. Obama is a product of Chicago machine politics, nothing more. He talks a good game, but does not deliver. Many of you probably have seen the articles about how he pays his female staffers 83 percent of what he pays males. McCain not only chose a woman to run with him, but pays females staffers more than the males.

Abortion is a declining issue. Look, if a woman has unprotected sex, when contraception is cheap and effective, she can fall back on the morning after pill. If she is really out of it, there's RU486.

For me, Obama's associations with Ayers, Pfleger, and Wright, and his refusal to speak out against the corruption in Illinois politics means he will never get my vote.

Lynette Long's approach is quite rational -- for a female or a male. Obama failed to select the highly qualified Hillary Clinton simply because he is afraid of strong women.

Posted by: katmandu | September 21, 2008 10:49 PM

Who cares what this woman thinks.

OBAMA-BIDEN '08

Posted by: johng1 | September 21, 2008 11:07 PM

katmandu: your feigned "rationalizations" are so transparent and shallow, one can see your little neocon brain hiding behind the pixels on the screen. If you think abortion is a "declining issue" why did you give money to Clinton this year? If McCain pays more "his female staffers than the males" don't you think that's unfair too? Or you are just making stuff up to sound like a reasonable McCain convert, you pathetic little dimwit...

I've seen posts of this kind on many other blogs. Sounds like they come from the same place -- McCain's campaign headquarters.

Posted by: Mad About Lies | September 21, 2008 11:10 PM

Support McCain if you wish, but abortion is hardly a declining issue. RU486 is a form of abortion that will instantly be made illegal with other forms in many states if Roe v. Wade is reversed. Do you even read the Washington Post katmandu? Did you read about South Dakota today? Do you think it's an anomaly? I am guessing you are male because of your glib remarks about contraception, as though there were no failures and as though it isn't already very difficult in many states for women to obtain abortions.

Posted by: Me | September 21, 2008 11:21 PM

"McCain hired more women for his senate office than did obama, and they are paid equal to the male staff, unlike obama!

However, obamanite women claim that obama will be better for women?? McCain treats women in the workplace equally, obama DOESN'T! What more do you need to know about the candidates on women issues."

----------------------------------


Demonstrably false.


http://www.legistorm.com/member/76/Sen_Barack_Obama/48/salary/desc.html

http://www.legistorm.com/member/69/Sen_John_McCain/48.html

Posted by: ropeswing | September 22, 2008 2:31 AM

>>He broke in during one of her victory speeches and when asked about it later said, 'Was someone talking? I didn't hear anyone talking.'>>He sold himself from day one as a man of God and a man of Christ. He is running on a commitment to people of faith, he spent 90% of his campaign in churches, and if you check his website, you'll see that women's rights and reproductive rights are nowhere to be seen. Instead he has a section called Faith & Family, and this has been true since day one.>>His commitment to people of faith: "I will not only maintain but expand Pres. Bush's Faith-based funding intitiative." (A program that is already being challenged by the ACLU and NOW because it has been used by the Catholic Chruch, most notably, to cut off women's access to local resources and to birth control and abortion even though this is a Constitutionally protected right).>And "I will not only maintain but expand the innovative learning techniques set forth in George Bush's No Child Left Behind." (aka, separate but equal gender education based on research that shows girls and boys have different brains and different capacities. For example, girls have no ability to excel at math and science so the public education system is wasting money educating females in these subjects to the detriment of boys who are being moved to remedial classes at a disproportionate rate.)>> Yet Obama has had discriminitory policies as central campaign themes since day one, and he's not backed off.<<<

Name one. And I don't mean just repeat the idiotic claims you made earlier.

Posted by: ropeswing | September 22, 2008 3:02 AM

"He broke in during one of her victory speeches and when asked about it later said, 'Was someone talking? I didn't hear anyone talking.' "

******

That is a lie.

Networks on occasion cut into Clinton's speeches to catch a McCain speech, and sometimes an Obama speech. On at least one occasion she was cut off because she delayed the timing of her speech. And Obama never, ever, made such a remark.

----------------------


"He sold himself from day one as a man of God and a man of Christ. He is running on a commitment to people of faith, he spent 90% of his campaign in churches, and if you check his website, you'll see that women's rights and reproductive rights are nowhere to be seen. Instead he has a section called Faith & Family, and this has been true since day one."

******

Clinton advertises herself as a woman of faith.

No one has spent 90% of their campaign in churches, and you just make yourself look silly by saying so.

Obama's website most certainly does feature a discussion of his support of women's rights, including reproductive rights. Have you even looked at his website?

For example:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues

Oh and by the way, there is no section called "Faith and Family."

----------------------------------

"His commitment to people of faith: 'I will not only maintain but expand Pres. Bush's Faith-based funding intitiative.' (A program that is already being challenged by the ACLU and NOW because it has been used by the Catholic Chruch, most notably, to cut off women's access to local resources and to birth control and abortion even though this is a Constitutionally protected right)."

***************

You are incredibly confused.

Federal funds may not be spent on abortion services under any federal program, and that has been true since the '80s.

You are confusing the recognized right of Catholic hospitals and health plans to receive medicaid funding even if they do not provide birth control services. Those are not the same as faith-based charities. You could look it up.

And incidentally, Clinton has encouraged faith based initiatives for years.

--------------------------

"And 'I will not only maintain but expand the innovative learning techniques set forth in George Bush's No Child Left Behind.'(aka, separate but equal gender education based on research that shows girls and boys have different brains and different capacities. For example, girls have no ability to excel at math and science so the public education system is wasting money educating females in these subjects to the detriment of boys who are being moved to remedial classes at a disproportionate rate.)"

*******

First, you are totally mixed up about the philosophy behind single-gender classrooms, which incidentally do promote the advancement of girls in math and science, among other things.

Second, the No Child Left Behind Act merely allows schools to try single-gender classes at their option. It does not require it.

Third, Hillary Clinton actively campaigned on her support of the act.

------------------------------

"Yet Obama has had discriminitory policies as central campaign themes since day one, and he's not backed off."

*******

Name one. And I don't mean just repeat the idiotic claims you made earlier.

Posted by: ropeswing | September 22, 2008 3:22 AM

As the great philosopher James Delaney Buffett said "I am looking for a smart woman in real short skirt a smart woman who knows how to flirt."

What upsets dems is she is against everything the far left loons believe in.

Lets see we have two lawyers running on the Dem ticket. Name one lawyer who was a good prez in last 140 years? And sorry Clinton was not a good prez!

And there has never been a decent prez who was an service academy grad. And no Eisenhower comes close but no cigar.

So we have three guys who cant win at pocket pool and a woman who shoots moose and looks damn good in a short skirt in mid forties! She wins.

Shame Gov Palin isnt running for prez.

I would vote for Hillary over Mccain. Obama's body language suggest he is weak and indecisive. When you see him with his wife and kids his body language confirms these first impressions. I dont want to see thousands of Americans and others die here in the US because Obama's policies bring terrorist attacks home to the US!
Mediators dont fucntion well in the application of military power. See Bill Clinton!

And he will raise everyone taxes he has to afford his programs. And even if he raises taxes on the so called rich they will just raise the prices you pay.

Posted by: VA Independent | September 22, 2008 8:08 AM

If Roe v. Wade is reversed, abortion does not ipso facto become "illegal". Abortion then becomes a states rights issue and it's up to each state to decide its legality.

Posted by: Stick | September 22, 2008 8:14 AM

Chill out! Her vote doesn't count anyway. She lives in the District of Columbia where Obama is likely to get over 70% of the vote. So why can't she have a little fun.

As a matter of fact, the networks have already "called" the race in DC for Obama. They just can't announce it.

Posted by: Graduate of the electoral college | September 22, 2008 8:27 AM

Stick, if you read the comments that was already pointed out. The issue is that there are many legislatures that already have laws designated to instantly go into effect the moment the ruling is reversed and others that have such laws in the offing. Some people, not you obviously, think it is a problem that women in many states will have to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to obtain an abortion if it stops being a federally protected right.

Many women don't have the financial and other means to do that and will inevitably pursue local illegal options or self-abortion, both unsafe.

Finally, if the GOP has its way, abortion will be illegal across the country, but that will not hinge on Roe v. Wade however it is in the GOP platform and is the position of McCain and Palin. The GOP Platform does not discuss a single exemption.

Posted by: Me | September 22, 2008 8:32 AM

I'm a registered Democrat and had seriously considered voting for McCain until he selected that big-mouthed liar from Alaska. Besides, we have enough hick in the White House now. We don't need to replace the wee-ha Texan with a stand-by-my-woman "First Dude."

Posted by: MD Female | September 22, 2008 8:48 AM

"I don't care what she thinks, she's a woman," is now both sexist AND "feminist."

We've come... sooo not that far. How sad.

Posted by: Shayna | September 22, 2008 9:02 AM

As a woman, I am sick unto death of my fellow female voters who somehow think that the Democratic nomination was "stolen" from Sen. Clinton because of her sex. She was the acknowledged front-runner with both name recognition, and money. She ran a crummy campaign, and lost. (You would think that someone of her intelligence would hire a staff who knoew the difference between a caucus and a primary.) Finally, I didn't vote for her because I didn't think that she could win. She can't win because of who she is, not because of her sex. She would energize the Republican base as much as Gov. Palin - if not more. Also, am I the only one who thinks she got where she is because of her husband? She never held elected office, never lived in NY, and somehow becomes the senator? If her life were a book, I wouldn't read it. I can only suspend credulity for so long.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 9:18 AM

This message is for Sonia, who was put off by the Obama people. Both sides can and will step up their invasive intrusions (including phone calls)as the election nears, so please don't think the dems have locked that down. I urge you to think about voting for the candidate you truly feel represents the majority of your opinions. We can't afford to waste any votes, and we don't have any strong independent candidates. Nader did a good job -- perhaps unwittingly -- helping to put Bush where he is. Petulance will only get us further in trouble.

By the way, for the record, I fear for our ability to choose substance over style. The GOP chose a skirt without a brain, because that is what they believe women really are.

Posted by: Sandy | September 22, 2008 1:03 PM

As a survivor of spousal abuse and spousal rape I resent the comparison by Long of Hillary Clinton not getting the nomination to "getting back in bed with the abuser." Really? Sure a lot of women are dissappointed that Clinton didn't win and then didn't get the VP spot, but comparing that to the actual physical torture I endured and finally escaped from.

Joe Biden isn't a great speaker, but he championed a cause close to my heart. He's male, but I know he's on my side, and the side of all abused women and children. So let's give him credit for that.

I felt the media was sexist toward Senator Clinton, but I did not feel Obama was sexist toward her. I voted for Obama in the primaries because I liked his ideas better, though I certainly respect Senator Clinton and if she had gotten the nomination I would be out stumping for her.

I don't care what John McCain paid his staffers when he voted against equal pay for women. I wish all our candidates were perfect and blameless, but I gave up on that a long time ago. Now I just hope for a candidate that will protect our interests, working class interests, women's interests, children's interests.

Bush/Cheney took us into endless war and ruined our economy. I admire John McCain's service for our country, but I can't vote for him when his policies and his votes are 90% in agreement with Bush/Cheney.

Sarah Palin is also against birth control and sex ed in schools. She not only charged rape victims for the collection of evidence (but not male assualt victims or burglary victims) but the charges presented an impediment to even reporting rape. And we all know that rape is already under reported. This means rapist get to keep hurting women and the women couldn't afford to press charges.

She does not represent women and John McCain does not either.

If Long thinks that having her favorite candidate not get the nomination is like being abused, I wish she could live in my shoes for a little while. I hope we'll have a woman president some day, but not one who opposes birth control and doesn't support women hurt by abuse and rape.

Posted by: Lyda | September 22, 2008 1:11 PM

This could have been me. Everyone expects women to "play nice" and "get over it" and vote for Obama. Nuh uh. Not this time.

Posted by: Ally | September 22, 2008 1:28 PM

Lynette Long is a d0ucheb@g.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 1:52 PM

From the comments I read here, you do not know Lynette Long. This article was really fluff. She has many more reasons for not voting for Obama... why were they not mentioned in this article? Hmmm, I wonder.

Posted by: Leisa | September 22, 2008 3:08 PM

Wow, you think Obama "abused" you? Please interview this moron again after 4 years of McCain-Palin - that is, if she's not practicing in New Zealand by then.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 12:32 PM

Let's leave aside the political absurdities of Long supporting Palin. As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I take offense to Long saying that "Reagan wasn't a brain surgeon" but that he learned on the job. Uhhh...Ronald Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild, a notoriously fractious union, while still in the movie business. He also served two terms as governor of California, the most populous and economically vibrant state in the union. Anyone who would equate Palin's experience with Reagan's frankly has no knowledge of recent American political history. No wonder Long votes purely with her emotions. I would say, "How like a woman," except I don't know any other women who are like this.

Posted by: Jack | September 23, 2008 3:11 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company