You know this Lorie, but = pay means = pay for = work. Do that analysis instead of lazily bringing up a tangential issue.

What would actually be helpful is an examination of voting records. If you look at the most recent issue on the Senate floor, you will find McCain not voting and Obama returning from the campaign to vote 'Yea' for = pay for = work.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00110

A dishonest comparison by any standard.

You're just not supposed to question things, I guess. I mean, Obama's one of the elite, one of the anointed ones. He's supposed to tell us how we're supposed to think, to act, to live. We're supposed to take our cues from him, not hold him to the standards he wants us to meet.

One does not question royalty, one does not expect them to act the same way as commoners, one doesn't hold them to the same ethical and moral values that they insist we meet. They are exempt due to their position, aren't they?

You should not question what your betters think. They are, after all, wiser than you in all things.

/sarc

Dims love to trot out the race card as it suits them, but, their primaries proved black dims are the most racist in America.

Dims claim to support women, but, we all see the vile ways they have attacked Sarah and her family, including the Dem politicians kid from Tn. Wasnt good enough to hack into her emails, that 'soon to popular in jail on Saturday night punk' eh had to broadcast it all over the Net, looking to inflict more harm.

No surprise Himself doesnt value women as much as conservatives do. How long til Himself realizes, AND ADMITS, he is a fricken hypocrite?

"I suppose they trust their friends in the media will never point out their hypocrisy."

That's exactly it Lorie. The fact that the majority of the media have abandoned their time-honored role as arbiters and become activists is, I believe, one of the greatest threats our republic has ever faced. They have tipped the scales unnaturally and threaten to send us all careening on a unknowable and dangerous path.

I suppose they trust their friends in the media will never point out their hypocrisy.

Very true. They even help you out by ignoring that you gave the incorrect year when your father came to this country, so your "activist" parade won't get rained on. Your media buddies will also remind you about whether you are Christian or Muslim during an interview.

Percent of women workers:

Legally, the percentage of women (or any group) a business hires has to reflect the percentage of women that apply for the job. So until we know if those actually hired reflect the pool of those who applied, reporting the percentages of women working for either candidate tells us nothing -- perhaps not as many women relative to men applied for jobs with Obama as with McCain.

Job Salary:

You're not taking job titles, experience, or responsibilities into consideration when you talk about job salaries. Reporting that one or another group has a higher average salary is meaningless.

A dishonest comparison by any standard.

Apparently, the voting record didn't have much to do with the fact that McCain's women staffers get paid more. Just because you vote for a bill, doesn't mean the end result is going to be fair. That is almost laughable that you say "but = pay means = pay for = work", you call Lorie "lazy", and you accuse her of posting a dishonest comparison. This isn't even dissent, you're just being obtuse.

Democrats want women to receive equal pay for equal work.

Unfortunately, they do not want women to HAVE work equal to men. Like, say, Barack Obama passing over a qualified woman like Hillary Clinton for a Senate time-server like Slo Jo Biden.

Obama. Just Empty Words.

jp2:

Fact: McCain has women in: 3of the top 5 positions on his staff; 7 of the top 10; and 13 of the top 20.
Fact: Obama has women in: 1 of the top 5 positions on his staff; 5 of the top 10; and 7 of the top 20.

This obviously substantially affects the average wages of staffers.

Fact: McCain has a female as his VP candidate.
Fact: Obama avoided the female candidte most likely to lock the election for him.

All this raises several interesting questions:

Why does Obama have so few female staffers in positions of authority; and, if the positions were reversed, would this be evidence of gender bias? Given that the Hillary supporters considered his behavior on the campaign trail as sexist, can we infer that his behaviors (actions) reveal his actual attitudes toward women?

Given an option, I prefer to look to actions rather than pretty words. Obama mouths all the right words. His actions contradict his mouth.

I think the term for that is hypocrisy.

Because most self-respecting women wouldn't stand for being called 'sweetie' by anyone, even the Obamamessiah himself.

hermie: how true - Obama's mouth and behavior lined up exactly with his principles.

I better check Adrian Browne's IP to make sure the comment above is not by an imposter. Most of that comment sounds like the conservative argument on the issue for as long as I can remember and I am getting pretty old.

Fact : McCain cheated on his crippled wife. How can he be for womens' rights?

It makes as much sense as the above arguments. It really only matters on voting records. You have no idea on what Obama's pay scale is. You have no idea who he offered jobs to or how many applied. The same for McCain. Great that you are applying some sort of affirmative action on Obama but hypocritical at the same time.

You can really only go on voting records - and big picture wise - it's the only thing that matters.

If you examine these voting records, you'll find that McCain has a much worse record than Obama on = pay for women.

I've made it very simple for you, just connect the dots. It's actually a D vs R thing. But you know that - I'm just calling out the BS.

Has anybody compared the payrolls of their campaign staffs? I'd be interested to see that.

jp2 - "It really only matters on voting records. You have no idea on what Obama's pay scale is"

Why do you assume we don't know the pay scale? Why project your inability or laziness on us?

On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

"You can really only go on voting records - and big picture wise - it's the only thing that matters."

Some people care if those in office practice what they preach -- or live as they vote. It not only is an indication of whether or not they are hypocrites, but shows if they are being honest about their concern for the issue. That is important because it would be a good indication of whether they would support it regardless of which interest groups' vote they need or who was lobbying them. It also is an insight into what kind of person they are.

James H.: getting info on the Obama staff is a bit tough - they really don't advertise it. They also don't hesitate to throw staff, reverends and granny under the bus when necessary.

I'm trying to recall a high ranking female in the Obama battle-order who is not first an elected official.

A quick google brought this

Until recently, there were almost no women in senior leadership inside the campaign. That changed with the end of the primaries: Anita Dunn came on as a senior adviser in the spring; and Stephanie Cutter, a former operative for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), arrived as chief of staff to Michelle Obama as the race entered general-election mode.

So they've added some...

Always link, marc.

"Some people care if those in office practice what they preach -- or live as they vote."

I would say that McCain cheating on his crippled wife would really turn you off then. He is actually practicing what he preaches - he votes against (or is absent in voting) important issues for women. AND he cheats on them and leaves them for younger women.

The "some people" tactic is as lame an argument as your original post - and it should be said that I am not one of "those people." I couldn't care less if McCain had 500 mistresses, but I do care that he has an anti-equality voting record.

jp2 - "Always link, marc."

Feeling frogy jp2? If so you leaped on the wrong lillypad.

You never link jackshit, and with just a bit on ingenuity and observation you would see "Report of the Secretary of the Senate" within the quote (assuming you read that far which I have reservations about) you were more concerned about once again shown to be of nitwit quality rather than using the simplest of options and going to the Secretary of the Senate website.

jp2: Consider it sourced. Thought the debate has been going on for a week....

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1118682&srvc=home&position=rated

you must have missed it the first time around.

I did miss it - I am just surprised anyone thinks McCain would be a better candidate for women than Barry. I'll check the data - much better source than Marc's CNS chain email. : )

jp2: "I would say that Obama cheating his female employees would really turn you off then. He is actually is a hypocrite - he votes for (or is absent in voting) important issues for women. AND he cheats his empolyees (female kind) and treats them like crap."

You do understand that there is a difference between a moral failing (single occurence) and systemic pattern of behavior, don't you, sweetie?

jp2 - "Some people" is not a "tactic" or an "argument," just a statement of fact. In fact, I would guess that "most people" like to know a little more about a politician than just his or her voting record. Do you really think that statement was a tactic or an argument? Or could you just not think of anything else to criticize. Talk about lame.

For the record, I never said you were one of "those people". I never said you were a person at all.

"you must have missed it the first time around."

Ooops sorry.. to continue... he's just being a jackhole, that and other sources with the data were linked in a thread several days ago where he also made his presence felt.

Paul D... wanna bet the "sweetie" sailed right over his noggin'?

marc - again, no link? Odd.

Paul : the Boston story makes no headway on = pay for = work. It states pretty clearly that McCain has more women working at higher levels. So of course they make more money. There are multiple reasons for this of course - I would think a major one would be numerous McCain campaign shakeups. (Several staff purges at the beginning of his primary campaign) Once again, absolutely nothing about = pay for = work.

"Or could you just not think of anything else to criticize. Talk about lame."

Lorie, if you read my first comment, I criticize your entire point. It's simply not justified. You and your daughter can believe what you want, but I am reliable for pointing out errors. Also, relying on CNS for your information may be a problem.

A Browne: did you read the article? Here's one close comparison:

As of the end of March, the highest paid male on Obama's staff was Christopher Lu, his legislative director, who earned $60,000 over the six month period, or $120,000 if adjusted annually.

The highest paid woman on McCain's staff is Ann D. Beggeman, the legislative director, who earned $65,298.48 for the six month period, which would be $130,596.96 for a year.

Also:

When Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal announced her support for Obama earlier this week, she pointed to gender pay equity as an issue. Smeal would not comment on Obama's Senate staff payroll, but said women voters should focus on the public policies of the candidates rather than other factors.

rather than other factors - like pay attention to what he says, not what he does.

That was the whole point of this post.

marc: do I get to bet that it did? Otherwise, no thanks.

jp2: Why does Obama not put women in positions of power? Why did he run a campaign widely seen as sexist against Hillary clinton and continued it against Palin? Why do his disciples act in a completely misogynistic manner?

Please define equal pay for equal work. Does it mean that you receive the same pay for precisely the same job based on time in service and job responsibilities? Or are you using a "comparable" work framework?
Thank you.

You said "some people" was a tactic and an argument. I just thought that was lame. And strange. I didn't say anything about what my daughter believes, just that she had to listen to me rant. I guess I should not have mentioned her at all. I forgot how much some of those on the left like to go after conservatives' kids. I'm not saying that anyone here has gone after any kids, just that when I read that comment it occurred to me that I probably shouldn't even let anyone know I have kids. I am not anonymous and I do sometimes worry about the safety of my family from people who are unhinged.

"marc: do I get to bet that it did? Otherwise, no thanks."

Damn, and I was sooo counting on an extra sheckle or two to pay for all the new taxes that will come no matter who's elected.

Paul D - "Why do his disciples act in a completely misogynistic manner? "

An equal and possibly more important question: Why do his surrogates inject race into the campaign?

marc: I'm just waiting for this exchange:

OBama: "You know, I don't look like those other guys on the dollar bills....blah, blah, etc."

Palin: "Wow. Obama says he doesn't look like those other guys. HE doesn't look like them. Why, I just can't imagine."

Lorie, if you read my first comment, I criticize your entire point. It's simply not justified. You and your daughter can believe what you want, but I am reliable for pointing out errors. Also, relying on CNS for your information may be a problem.

I read your first comment, and your point was to call her lazy and dishonest, then throw a bunch of voting stats at her like that has a lot to do with what is actually happening.

You also have the balls to tell marc to "always link" and critizing the cns source. Where the hell do you think they get the stats? They just make them up? No, it's time for you to just live up to your own standards and prove at least six online publications are wrong for posting this information.

Also, relying on CNS for your information may be a problem.

Not until you can prove why it might be. Citing errors? So far, the only thing you have been good at is tooting your own off-key horn.

LaMedusa - "No, it's time for you to just live up to your own standards and prove at least six online publications are wrong for posting this information."

I agree, but would also suggest jp2 get himself some new toys to entertain himself with.

Gah, marc! No wonder I'm always afraid to click on your links! I always end up with mental images that won't go away.

jp2 go play with yourself >_>

#6 A-Browne

Job Salary:

You're not taking job titles, experience, or responsibilities into consideration when you talk about job salaries. Reporting that one or another group has a higher average salary is meaningless.

Which is exactly how you get to Obama's absolutely bullcrap 77 cents on the dollar statistic that the left likes to use. Make a real apples to apples comparison and the general salary gap disappears.

Are you sure you are the real A. Browne?

some guy: "Please define equal pay for equal work."

Really? I'm not in the mood for school, sorry. I suggest books. I'll give you a head start, then I'm outtie: Comparing two different companies' pay scales is not a good measure, nor is comparing numbers of women employed.

marc: "A better source than the Secretary of the Senate?"

Show me the money - link it. : )

And Lorie, there is no need to make it personal. I haven't resorted to attacking you personally or calling you names - just your malformed arguments. It's not necessary to stoop to a "what about the children?!" level or personal insults.

Show me the money - link it. : )

jp2~

I am sure your wife (?) is very pleased with your ability to get others to do the work for you so you can cash in on their research. I am sure she is very happy about the bankroll that you manage to produce while making others do the labor. But I know I am never going to work for you, and be suckered into your feigned niceness coupled with stupidity.

What you have just demonstrated, is the very thing you accused Lorie of, only yours is pure laziness. I am guessing you have used this technique to cash in bigtime, or make yourself appear more intelligent. Eventually, your bubble is going to burst, and people will realize what a conniving user you are.

That is the only reason you come here to tell other people how lazy and inept they are as a cover, is so you can get information and pass it on. Not necessarily from this website, that has yet to be determined. If you were really that good at finding errors, you would be doing it at news sites and not coming here everyday to lie about how bad the writers are. You are one dishonest and calculating bastard, and you wouldn't keep pushing for that link if you knew how to get it yourself. I know exactly where to find it, and no, you are not getting that from me. Oh, yeah. No need to take it personally, it's only business.

And marc~

Awesome! I'll bet that's right up his alley.

jp2: As you are fond of noting, you have yet to provide a link for "equal pay for equal work". I will therefore provide you with my definition and we'll see if we can agree.

Equal pay: The same pay that another person of equal qualifications, time in the field (including extra hours worked but unpaid, ie. unpaid overtime), time in company and results.

Equal work: The exact same job function that another employee performs.

There, now we can argue about the relevent stat: McCain has twice as many female employees in positions of power and influence as Obama. Why? And why does Obama treat women like crap?

And one question just for you, jp2: In your opinion is it okay to treat women like crap provided: A) we pay the going rate and B) we say we care and vote to pay them the going rate?

FWIW Biden is worse than Obama in this respect -