Totally and nothing but a crony appointment, pay to play crap, which will do nothing more than further divide women, she is the right side of his brain………..

She’s not out to win for women, but for Obama in 2012.

So despite Ms. Jarrett’s lifelong accomplishments where she probably had to deal with the slings and arrows of sexist men, her friendship with and work for the President disqualifes her.

While a history of involvement in the women’s rights movement would definitely be a plus, distance from and a lack of association with the President would not be a positive in a job where you want the President’s ear, action and support.

Let her know, the best of our years are to come, and it won’t be from a woman that sat in silence during this election. It will
come from the voice of women who put pressure on the media and those who participated in sexism, including women against women, that was wrong, and we did somethiing about it ………we started the New Agenda, we started many internet sites deciated to anchoring a system for women.

SomeHopeyChange, “other than being a successful business woman and prima slum landlady” statement appears to belittle being a successful businesswoman – which is a significant accomplishment. And is being a real estate developer/owner/property manager the same as “prima slum landlady?” Finally, being a lawyer, having a BA in psychology and chairing the Chicago Stock Exchange, Ms. Jarrett appears to have excellent credentials.

John, this is a very good idea, I think. And fair. She has no background in women’s issues, other than being a successful business woman and prima slum landlady, as an example.
I think it would be fair for any appointee.

I agree with TB, a very good approach and tone. I call it “optimistically critical” – applaud positive steps, be willing to serve as a partner in fostering women’s rights but be very critical of action and demand results.

Why can’t we say that we are glad to see the office created, but there are other women more qualified to head it, or simply reserve judgment on Jarrett? Why must it be treated as a single issue?

The question of gender voting has come up often in different threads. I _feel_ a burst of fresh air at the thought of “Just vote for the woman” but my logical mind always adds “when in doubt” or “other things being equal” or some such major limiter. And i remember the military rule: “The first duty of a prisoner is to escape.” So my first duty when in doubt, is to try to become less in doubt — ie to further research one or both candidates.

As for your other questions, I fear that discussion would become a bit off-topic for TNA, and divisive. I’ve started a blog of my own, http://pumaforpalin.blogspot.com/, where I can discuss just about anything, if you’ d care to take it up there.