Obama Gets an “A” in Optics
December 6, 2008
by Amy Siskind
|
Orszag, Obama and Nabors
You gotta hand it to President-elect Obama. The optics of his campaign are simply spectacular. I mean let’s face it. Obama throws one heck of a news conference.
In introducing his Economic Team, he set the stage with two men (Geithner and Summers) and two women (Romer and Barnes). Oh, by the way, Summers is known for publicly stating that girls’ intrinsic aptitude in math and science are inferior to boys, and Geithner wants to dismiss the only woman (Bair) on the bailout team. But, no worries, there were two other women on the stage – heck, who cares that their responsibilities will be so much less than the men?
This past Monday, we were treated yet again to some lovely optics. Another Obama Press Conference with three men and three women. Some women’s groups cheered – hooray for Barack Obama – look what great things he does for the women of this country. Three women on a stage. We women have made such progress and have so much to be thankful for.
But, hold on! There’s something wrong here. Well, there were a couple of less well covered news conferences inbetween. Like the one yesterday where Obama introduced Peter Orszag as Director, Office Management & Budget (a cabinet position) and Rob Nabors, newly named deputy budget director. Or the conference this past Tuesday where Bill Richardson was named Secretary of Commerce.
Wait a minute. I’m doing the math. Something is really wrong here. The stage at the beautifullly orchestrated press conferences shows 50/50 men/women. But, numbers are a funny thing. Looks like actually eight (8) of Obama’s first eleven (11) picks are men – so 72% of his picks are men! Wow, that’s a lower percentage of women than President Clinton or President George W. Bush. Could this be a huge step BACKWARDS for the women of this country?
And this is not even to mention all the men, such as Nabors or Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google that are quietly named to teams each day.
Women of this country are taking on huge step backwards: 52% of the population, 54% of the vote in the U.S. 2008 election, and now 28% of the cabinet.
Who’s cheering now???
Amy- good points.
Re: the video on front page, I completely agree with you and so much appreciate your ability to verbalize the issues and do so in a calm manner. As a lifelong Democrat I felt a good degree of irony that Id be so irate at the media and other’s treatment of Sarah Palin. Your comments that innuendo must be taken against a backdrop of the larger stage, set by continued attacks on Hillary are oh-so-on-point.
Amy,
Wouldn’t it be fairer to wait until all the cabinet positions are filled before declaring the percentage is less than Clinton or Bush?
A question that strikes me about this blog is:
Is The New Agenda truly about advancing women’s issues, or about nursing a seemingly infinite well of resentment against President-Elect Obama for having the audacity to defeat Hillary Clinton in the primary season?
Now that the “Candidate of your lifetime” has joined the team for the good of the country, it would be great if we, as Americans who are members of historically excluded groups, display a keen interest in how Obama’s actions will lead the country forward, even while keeping one eye on the group’s particular participation interests.
The point of this election was that ISSUES do still matter. Even though Obama’s close alignment on major issues with Hillary seems to have no impact of the feelings toward him at The New Agenda.
But this Blog seems to have abandoned all substantive issues so that you can pursue “The Narrow Agenda” of gender, to the total exclusion of issues that “Divide women.” Well, issues are what divide EVERYONE, black, white, male, female, young, old. The only way to avoid dividing any group is to essentially be about NOTHING substantial, except chromosomally-defined group identity.
Issues are why I, as an African-American, was thrilled to see Obama elected, but would NEVER have voted for Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, Larry Elder, or any number of blacks who I disagree with on the issues.
Most blacks, and the vast majority of women for that matter, are not so tunnel-vision determined to see a member of their group in power that they don’t care what the candidate thinks. Not at all. Which is part of the reason Sarah Palin had such low support among women, and much higher support among men.
When I read this blog, I see support for Hillary Clinton often being transferred to Sarah Palin. That’s two people who have ONLY gender in common. I wonder if you’d be just as happy to see Phyllis Schlafly, Michelle Malkin, and Barbara Boxer appointed to the cabinet. They’d all apparently be lauded here, because they’d go into the right hand column on your 52%-of-the government-or-bust-chart.
I respectfully submit that you have allowed the understandable pain and disappointment of Hillary’s loss to narrow and warp your focus in a counterproductive way. That’s my opinion. I’m sure it will probably unleash a flood of ire and name calling.
I support the ERA. I support Equal Pay For Women. I support Reproductive Freedom for women. I support women’s rights.
But I don’t support the approach your organization is currently taking. Your blogs drip with Obama bashing, and quota-centric demands, with little regard for anything else.
You are intelligent, passionate, and dedicated. You can do better.
DL Scott
DL Scott
I know your post was wriiten to Amy, but since it’s posted in a public forum, I wanted to respond…
First, I appreciate your very thoughtful post. Your ideas are clearly stated, non overly embued with emotion, and very articulate. I truly appreciate where you’re coming from while grappling with some issues that conflict with some of what you’ve said:
1. I think that for many women this year, the gender parity issue has boiled down to a quota mentality, for better or for worse. I, for one, am not sure where I stand on that point, but I appreciate the feeling that many women have articulated that it’s now or never. We need to start having women represented in government equal to our percentage in the population irrespective of where they may fall on the issues. Sometimes I think that’s nuts, other times I can get on board with the rationale.
2. I think that for many of us, where women fall on certain issues is less black and white (not meant in the skin color way) than we may have previously perceived certain things. Abortion is one such issue. In addition, I think that after what we lived through this primary season and the amount of hypocrisy we’ve witnessed that many of us feel like we can no longer count on “liberals” to be for us and “conservatives” to be against us/our issues of concern. And I do believe it is more nuanced than at least I, for one, used to see it. So, whereas a few years ago we may have perceived Palin as the enemy with nothing to offer us as women, we now see that it’s not so simple, so black and white; that there are things we may lose, but very important things we could gain.
3. Related to the above, and in speaking for myself, I would say that poeple who voted for Obama overlooked as many central issues as you, for example, may feel we are overlooking by focusing so strongly on gender parity. Obama’s history shows a distrubing trend toward asociating himself with anti-Semites. That, alone, is profoundly disturbing and I puzzle over how people could let that issue slide. His pay scale for his female staffers was something that also deely disturbed me. I had loftey owrds from his speeches, and then I had actualy facts and the facts were not good. Come on. 78 cents on the dollar compared to his male staffers. What is that about? (I have a laundry list of such issues which I won’t type here as this is a post and not a thread on a blog of my own.)
I have a headache, can’t proof read this for typos, and can’t organize the rest of my thoughts…perhaps we can continue an exchange over tthe coming days….
I just spent a little over one hour reviewing the 11 page transcript that the NYT report has from Larry Summers’ 2005 talk. For what its worth, here is my assessment:
Larry Summers’ 1st point: “So I think in terms of positive understanding, the first very important reality is just what I would call the, who wants to do high-powered intense work?”
He built his argument well, with this one exception. A young man graduating from a prestigious University with exceptional credentials has little problem finding a wife who will “carry his water for him” while he works 80 hours each week. A young woman in the same category typically cannot find such a mate. The choice she has to make is very different that her male peer’s choice. We do not know how many men would decline if it prevented them from finding a mate. His conclusion is both an unfair judgment and unfounded.
Larry Summers’ 2nd point: “It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population.”
Regardless the longwinded, highly qualified explanation that includes several admissions that the available data is not reliable, this statement is not meaningful. So there is “relatively clear evidence that … there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population”. So what Larry? What life changing decisions should we make on “relatively clear evidence” based on data that you acknowledge is not reliable if we don’t actually have to?
Also, your antidotes about the kibbutz experience and you daughters toy trucks are not science.
Larry Summers’ 3rd point: “So my best guess, to provoke you, of what’s behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people’s legitimate family desires and employers’ current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.”
A very nice way of saying, the good guys want to hire the “competent” males and the bad guys want the “incompetent” females to be hired.
In conclusion: If any public figure has made these arguments regarding the underrepresentation of African Americans in 2005 without some form of retraction after the fact, he or she would be effectively banned from public discourse, much less public service.
Anna,
It was nice to see a thoughtful response to my post. I would like to
continue the dialogue. I’m leaving for a three-day trip in a few hours, so I won’t be able to respond again until Tuesday. I’d like to explore some of the points you mentioned in more detail later.
I’d just quickly say that healing the wounds of this primary season is difficult because you had two candidates, close in ideology, who represented the hopes and aspirations of two historically shut-out groups. That made it very emotional and personal for both sides.
There were times during the campaign when I developed a long laundry-list of gripes to justify HATING Hillary. You can always find reasons to hate the person blocking your aspirations. Since my candidate won, it’s much easier for me to let go of all of that, and now I’m back to supporting Hillary. I know that if Obama had lost, I would have been bitterly disappointed, and perhaps very ambivalent towards President-Elect Hillary Clinton (though I know I would definitely have voted for her).
So I understand the resentment. But I also think that many of the people at The New Agenda are among the people holding onto this negativity for the longest. I just think the organization can be much more effective by doing what I HOPE I would be able to do in your situation, which is let go of the bitterness and look forward. Because our nation is in big trouble now. When the ship is going down, it almost doesn’t matter if you love the captain, it’s all hands on deck.
I think The New Agenda should continue to be a voice for female participation in the government. I just take issue with the tone Amy sometimes takes, and the narrowness of the focus. Her continued obsession with interpretations of the insults BOTH candidates threw back and forth at each other during the primaries is pointless. This is politics and that was a hard fought campaign. Candidates demean their opponents, overtly and subtly. That’s what they do to try to win. Both candidates made subtle, sometimes questionable, use of identity politics. But I don’t think either campaign crossed the line in any ways so bad that it couldn’t be dropped as soon as the competition was over. Hillary Clinton did that, proving during the General Election that she was a far bigger person than I gave her credit for. She’s a true patriot who puts her issues above herself.
I was thrilled that Obama showed his maturity by picking her for Sec of State. I think these are two great people who I am glad are working together to pull our country out of the fire. If Hillary runs in 2016, I’ll now be the first person to pull out my checkbook. And I’m going to make a donation to help retire her debt.
Let’s talk about this more later. Thanks you for you willingness to discuss and entertain an “opposing” viewpoint.
DL Scott
John,
What an excellent analysis of Summer’s talk. Your final point is powerful beyond words.
Thanks for taking the time to read, research, think, write and post! (You guys really can keep us with us women!!!)
DL Scott –
Been thinking about your first post and have a few more comments. Also just read your second post. Yes, I hope we can continue the dialgoue.
As for which candidate won, while it’s moot on one level, on another it’s not, which is: It is not clear that Obama did win. With 1) Clinton winning the popular vote, 2) the massive caucus fraud (ever wonder how the person who won more primaries in history lost 13 of 14 caucuses? Check out Lynette Long’s site if interested in sorting this conondrum out for yourself.) that suggests Obama may well have stolen the caucuses, 3) the imbalanced way that caucus states proportion votes for the convention, 4) the outrageous media bias for Obama and against Clinton, 5) the DNC agenda (the motivations of which may never be fully known) for Obama to be the winner, revealed through Dean, Pelosi and Brazille’s attitudes, along wtih superdelegate pressure, 6) the rigged convention….shall I go on. So, it’s hard to accept a President who many view as not necessarily even the legitimate winner. Kinda like Bush all over again, except within our own party.
I realize one can say, but, but, but, we must move on. And, I agree. However, for those of us who supported Clinton, it’s a bit irritating when Obama supporters talk of their candidates “win”.
Also, I think you’re oversimplifying when you say that Amy is just bashing Obama or suggesting that she’s not getting on board during a time of crisis when we need all hands on deck. I agree this is a crisis and we do need all hands on deck. In my view, she/we are simply trying to ensure that half of those top level hands are the hands of women. I see no harm in that and I don’t view that as somehow working against an incoming President during a time of crisis.
Also, somewhat switching the focus: As I continue to grapple with the quota notion, I can’t shake the feeling that if we don’t finally just bite the bullet and get gender parity going, we will continue to remain in a paternalistic state, whereby we look to men in power to be our best advocates and whereby men in power promise to put forth efforts to ensure women’s rights, etc. At some point, we need to advance issues that concern us OURSELVES.
Changing focus again, I do agree that letting go of feelings of anger and “bitterness” as you say is crucial. But you know what, until Obama really puts his money where his mouth is as far as women’s rights goes, it’ll not only be hard, it may be impossible. Many of us simply don’t trust him. And when you don’t trust someone, all bets are off.
That said, I believe that any organization that has as its mission, the advancement of women’s rights needs to grow and expand how that mission will be accomplished and in this case, I feel we need to get beyond Obama and Clinton. However, as one blogger recently pointed out, we are on the cusp of changing administrations, we are in the middle of cabinet appointments, and this is a very important area for us to focus our energies.
BTW, I’d be interested to hear how you reconcile his talk with how he’s paid his female staffers, along with how you live with feeling good about a President whom you feel that as an African-American voter you were discerning about (i.e., you wouldn’t have voted for anyone simply because they were black) with Obama’s tendency toward acceptance of (at best) and perhaps identification with (at worst) people who are anti-Semitic.
Also would be curious to hear how you think he should respond, if at all, to his speechwriters groping of a Clinton life-sized cut out. Can you imagine Clinton having her speechwriter found to be miming some horrid racist act with a lifesized cut out. How would you feel if she were the incoming President and we found out about something like this? What would you think of her? What would you expect her to do?
Looking forward to your thoughts.
DL Scott,
You said,
“I’m sure it will probably unleash a flood of ire and name calling.”
Thanks for the confidence. We have not called each other names here yet, that I’ve seen. This is the most civilized blog I have been part of so far. And ire is not a concern here, as long as you’re still making respectful points.
You said,
“But this Blog seems to have abandoned all substantive issues so that you can pursue “The Narrow Agenda” of gender, to the total exclusion of issues that “Divide women.”
This blog WANTS to pursue the agenda it wants to pursue which is to focus on the issues that women feel unity over, which we estimate to be 80% of them. YES, as far as I understand, we want to exclude focusing on those issues that divide us. And I for one, am happy about that. And I accept this mission and I am signed on to it.
If you don’t agree, don’t accept, than you are free to not participate. I don’t appreciate you telling us we’re wrong about what we’re trying to do. There’s no wrong or right most of the time, it’s about what works.
You said,
“The only way to avoid dividing any group is to essentially be about NOTHING substantial, except chromosomally-defined group identity.”
I’m sorry DL Scott, but, the female identity is extremely inclusive and quite substantial. Females are being in this moment, and the next and the next, raped, murdered, beaten, stoned, slapped, spit on, kicked, aborted all over the world, because of their chromosomes.
We need to come together as females, and put a stop to our opression by this society.
God, your insensitivity has produced much ire.
You said,
“The point of this election was that ISSUES do still matter. Even though Obama’s close alignment on major issues with Hillary seems to have no impact of the feelings toward him at The New Agenda.”
The point of this election FOR ME, DL SCOTT, was to support a woman I believed in, trusted, and a woman who could be a role model. That was my issue, and continues to be my issue.
And I am optimistic about Obama, wish him well, because to wish otherwise would mean wishing bad on myself. That does not mean he is perfect and that he shouldn’t be held to extremely high standards. He has yet to prove to me his desire and interest in making this world better for women.
One last thing. Quotas have been implemented in other countries and they work to increase female representation in government. Like it or not, it works and I’m for it.
DL,
After all the cabinet positions are named, then it will be too late to speak out – that is the point.
Perhaps this is not the organization for you? No organization can possibly hope to make every American citizen happy. Perhaps for the type of thing you are looking for you should consider NOW, The White House Project or Emily’s List – these organizations seem much more content to accept the status quo and take what they can get from President-elect Obama. That is NOT what The New Agenda is about.
It was nice having you at our site. When you return from your break, I think we would prefer that you take your energies elsewhere.
Amy
I have to say that I found your post (8:16 pm) rather shocking. I have been searching for a place to call home in terms of activism after feeling that many grassroots orgs that sprung up this year started to take on a tone that felt utterly ridiculous, lacking in maturity and hypocritical. If TNA is going to be a serious organization, musn’t it/we find a way to deal with and address issues raised by what will undoubtedly be visitors who are confused, who disagree, who challenge, who are trying to understand, who agree with some stuff and disagree with other stuff, who may appreciate the mission but have a different view on how to get there, etc? Don’t WE go to sites and blogs and post when we feel something’s gone off course?
In your response to DL Scott, I felt like your first statement was right on. I also felt like it was not unreasonable to suggest other orgs that he/she might be interested in, though you obviously posted it will an edge of sarcasm, which made your comment rather disingenuous. And, I thought your last statement was utterly needless. It just makes you/us appear immature and defensive.
I think that when people genuinely challenge each other, the outcome is often the better for it because it forces both parties to articulate their ideas very clearly and defend their positions without double standards, etc.
Anne-Marie
I enjoyed reading your post. AND, I’ve been thinking about a post you wrote last week about waiting for marching orders, etc! Are you aware of Lynette Long’s call for stories from this year? She is planning a book proposal related to the election that will includes stories from folks like us (should she select it). You write well and are very passionate. You obviously were very active politically this year. Have you considered contacting Lynette and, if she’s still working on this project, submitting a piece? I think you could write something wonderful!
I think the difference between this and blogs is that this is an activism site that has a blog. It’s not a blog. It has a blog, but this is a real activism site, an organization with goals.
Hello All,
Just wanted to let you know that we wrote an opt-ed piece that will be published in The Daily Beast in the morning. We have incorporated all the issues that came up over the weekend (Bair, Favreau, Senate Hearings, Cabinet). And yes, Kiuku – activism is our game!
We will use this piece to pass along our notions to the press next week.
“But this Blog seems to have abandoned all substantive issues so that you can pursue ‘The Narrow Agenda’ of gender…”
Sorry, Anna, but I agree with Anne Marie and Amy. That’s no “thoughtful” comment nor inducive to “dialog.”
And that’s as far as I read of that diatribe. I would hope this place does not become bogged down with interminable and pointless long threads trying to convince people who don’t get it why we’re here and what we’re doing. Let alone engaging those with a poor opinion of us who belittle the group with “clever” nicknames while pointing the finger and accusing us of name-calling.
Amy was dead on.
Amy, looking forward to the new piece…I hope it incorporated the “monster” comment woman. I keep forgetting her name…
Also wanted to say this is an EXCELLENT post on how the “Office of the President-Elect” (snort!) skews perception while maintaining the same old good boy network.
@Amy
You said,”I think we would prefer that you take your energies elsewhere.”
I couldn’t agree more. Well done to you. That is why I love The New Agenda. Either you are with us or you can get out of the way.
I am a white man. I assume that Every Man I meet is sexist unless he self-identifies as a feminist. I have never been proven wrong in my assumption.
I am not on earth to convince anyone that women are the underrepresented majority. Either they get it or they don’t.
As The New Agenda has grown in prominence, so has the incidence of “trolls” to hit our website. Folks who have joined dialogue and been disrespectful or other viewers, or seem to have a hidden agenda.
The goals of this blog is really to be educational and to keep our members up on issues and what we are working on. As well, we look for thoughful suggestions or comments that we can incorporate as part of the organization’s way forward.
The blog will be maintained as a peaceful environment where viewers will not be attacked in any way. There are a number of viewers that have been removed or are on watch as we will continue to be vigilant to maintain the safety and mutual respect of our blog.
This is not open for debate.
Gender is far from a “narrow agenda”. Women are more then half the human race. I’m not sure there is another issue that covers that huge of a span of people.
Besides, the impact of keeping half the human race out of the political process has even more far reaching consequences, as we see in countries were women are oppressed. It’s not that women necessarily govern better, it’s that their lack of representation also tends to go hand in hand with increased corruption, instability, and violence.
I am just curious why there is no critique of Republicans or conservative groups on this website. There is no discussion of the Dominionist alliance with Sarah Palin. There is no talk about the concept of headship (that the man is the head of the family and that the wife should submit herself to him) advocated by the churches Sarah has attended.
Why does this group condone Sarah’s interview where she stated that she was opposed to abortion in the case of rape and incest? Great for Sarah if she chooses to go through with the pregnancy but a lot of other women couldn’t go through with it.
Sally-
If you will go to the FAQ you will see why we are not addressing abortion. As to the other questions, we are non-partisan so we won’t be addressing partisan issues. We are interested in addressing the 80% of issues we can all agree on and not dwelling on the 20% we don’t. Please check out the FAQ and the goals and see what you think!
“The point of this election was that ISSUES do still matter. Even though Obama’s close alignment on major issues with Hillary seems to have no impact of the feelings toward him at The New Agenda.”
There are issues and there are actions. For us, actions matter more than issues. Obama has a lousy record with regard to sexism and gender equality. He has earned the New Agenda’s criticisms via his actions and record.
How are we supposed to advance women’s issues without putting pressure on the new administration? Who else is now responsible and needs to take the heat? This is a nonpartisan group that was formed before Nov 4th. If John McCain had won, the New Agenda would be putting pressure on him to have a cabinet that better represents the population.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...