"Senator McCain, would you support paying your female Vice President only 77% of what Dick Cheney is currently paid?"

If more wage controls are on the Obama agenda, then he loses the middle of the road vote.

This post just lost a bunch of Obama votes.

would you support paying your female Vice President only 77% of what Dick Cheney is currently paid?"

I would insist on it, and so would she.

...saying women just need more 'education and training....

Like Sarah Palin. (has only a bachelor's degree)

Another great issue to attack any "white woman" gains that McCain has gotten from Palin. Does she believe it's fair to to be paid less? Or does her husband's union job take care of all of the family's financial needs?

I've been paid less than a less qualified male in the same role. It bites ass.

McCain also supports the concept of "being married to one person for the rest of his life" but didn't want to "tie his hands when it came to finding a younger, richer wife down the road."

McCain supports the concept of "fixing the economy" but doesn't want to "tie the hands of the people that are still making piles of money today."

McCain supports the concept of "a clean campaign" but doesn't want to "tie the hands of his advertising agency creative output."

McCain supports the concept of "telling the truth" but doesn't want to "tie my own hands with facts that could later get in the way of me becoming president of the United States."

I don't understand why the ad incorporates McCain's pushback -- the line about "education and training" -- without negating the claim, by stressing that levels of training are comparable.

To me, it felt like a weak ad. But I've got a Y chromosome. If they're airing this on channels, or in time slots, that skew decidedly XX, it might be well targeted.

When John McCain was a POW, he didn't have any women to discriminate against. And to even raise the question is clearly a sexist attack on Sarah Palin.

Matt,

you're insane. Well either that or insanely stupid. Or just mind boggling stupid. Well one of those for sure.

that is all. Carry on with your regularly scheduled programming.

neilt.

p.s. there are two things I know of that inflame the passions of every woman I've ever met, no matter what age, class, race, colour, creed, sexual or political orientation: 1) The Wage Gap 2) Having to pay taxes on feminine hygeine products.

How many more women vote than men again?

When John McCain was a POW, he didn't have any women to discriminate against. And to even raise the question is clearly a sexist attack on Sarah Palin.

This question, along with one about the Employee Free Choice Act, should be one that is asked directly to Sarah Palin.

It's an incredibly weak ad. It sounds like they're selling adult diapers.

Assume it will be well-targeted. Years ago, when Romney ran against Kennedy for the Senate here in MA, it was clear that Kennedy had an ad for each and every demographic, and they were clearly targeted. It made me want to turn on stuff that I would never watch, just to see what the heck the ad would say. Romney's efforts at the time were startlingly lame.

Kennedy's people certainly talk to Obama's people; I'd be stunned if they didn't get this right.

Following up on an item from last week, this is a key area where McCain is vulnerable.

Steve, is there a key area where McCain isn't vulnerable?
And yet McCain is still winning...

[Insert apt quote from Goethe's Faust here.]

[trolling deleted]

With apologies for heading off-topic, I just encountered a very interesting website that's very interesting. It's like a first presidential debate between Obama and McCain, focussed on science and technology, with good questions, and answers that are as meaty as we are going to get:

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42

For my money, Obama wins hands down.

Ted - some women (myself included) find the line about "education and training" insulting. We believe it to be condescending, as if McCain is saying - "all you stupid women need is more education, then you can be paid like the big boys."

It also implies a shockingly simple solution - all we have to do is run out and get more education and suddenly we will deserve the higher pay! It pushes the blame and responsibility for receiving fair pay on women, and puts none of the blame and responsibility on unfair and biased business practices and government policies.

It is true that women have been closing the pay gap over the past 15 years because more of us have earned college degrees. Unfortunately some business practices and government policies don't support equal pay once we arrive at our jobs.

MSNBC just showed a poll of women's support - 53% McCain to 37% Obama. I am ashamed for my gender.

Wow, McAristotle / "Researcher" is drunker than usual to have produced such an incoherent blarg of right-wing talking points.

How is this getting at swing voters?

Simple -- a call to the basic fairness and deceny of the American people. Naturally, that leaves Republicans out.

McCain is not trying to win over those off you who automatically believe legislation is the answer to everything?

There already is legislation mandating businesses not to discriminate; the SCOTUS undermined it in a massively dishonest decision. And, of course, McCain is on record supporting that decision and opposing any remediation. Which plays well to right-wing creeps like you, but to women affected by Republicans yet again bollixing up the economy, not so much.

The swing voters loathe affirmative action as is.

Cite, please.

Plus someone analyzed campaign payroll data. Obama's is the won underpaying women.

Cite, please.

And, better trolls, please.

Jackass.

Take it from me - an HR Manager. I see the salaries and women are paid less for doing the same work with the same background and experience. I try to bring instances I see to the attention of management but must pick and choose my battles carefully because management doesn't like these things being pointed out - almost lost my job once fighting for a raise for a woman. Oh, and women of color are paid even less - that's the real dirty little secret.

This issue (among many) is why I am so ridiculously stunned that so many women support McCain.

Either millions of them don't mind being paid less for doing the same work as a man, don't have a clue that McCain doesn't give a damn about it, or are rightwing nuts who would support a block of wood if it had an "R" after its name.

It's depressing, regardless of the reason.

Ted said:
I don't understand why the ad incorporates McCain's pushback -- the line about "education and training" -- without negating the claim, by stressing that levels of training are comparable.

I know my immediate reaction when McCain made that statements months ago was, succinctly, "Fuck you." He said that, and I heard "You just think you're equally qualified. Actually, you're dumb/ignorant/an untrained, wide-eyed little girl and so OF COURSE you get paid less, silly. Now go back to work." I didn't need anybody to tell me the training statistics because I knew on its face that his claim was bogus. Context aside, my "Truthy" reaction (as opposed to rational reaction) didn't need any help to know that JMac was being an ass--because he sounds like every sexist ass who came on to my mom in a job interview at consulting firms in the eighties.

This ad is aimed at women who have experienced this kind of discrimination or who have been close to it. McCain sounds like the enemy from that point of view, trust me.

Phoey, I see that I hit Send before I remembered to delete one of the "very interesting's". Just pretend I'm doing a Henry Gibson imitation, and read them as "verrrrry eennterrrresssttting". Really, it's an interesting set of questions and answer.

I agree with the poster above--I'm ashamed at those polls re: the women's vote for all Americans--and I double that shame for the discussion David Shuster and A.B. Stoddard just had on MSNBC re: same.

Rather than question this oddity that Hillary Democrats and undecided women seem to have moved to Palin just because she is a woman--they solidify the results by embellishing without elaborating--

They each go on to conclude this:

Women are going for what's "REAL" (Stoddard)

Huh? What's real about Palin?!

And

Women are going for the "Authenticity" factor (Shuster)

Huh? What's Authentic about Palin?!

This is sloppy,lazy, dangerous and irresponsible analysis. They failed to qualify by clearly saying Palin appears to be perceived as being real/authentic--not that she truly is.

They failed to make this distinction between perception and fact/reality, and in their neglect they thereby collude with the existing mythology.

Without ensuring this, it sounds to the average listener as though Palin is indeed "Real and Authentic". There was not one utterance of how this might be a false perception, given that she's been caught in multiple lies.

When folks tune in and hear Palin is real and authentic--well, there you have it. Shuster and Stoddard may as well have just handed Palin more votes. Talk about free advertising.

Shame on them for not taking the opportunity to make this critical distinction. That's how elections are won--when Media colludes (passively or actively) with the absurdities that are right in front of them, when they don't encourage folks to be critical thinkers, and instead opt to indulge the myth.

RE: salaries of Obama vs. McCain

Looked into further:

Company that has the information of salaries: http://www.legistorm.com/

The one who did the analysis:
Duroy Murdoch of National Review Online - article

Need another analysis....

I support the "concept" of voting for McCain, but I'm going to keep donating to Obama and vote straight Democratic in the election.

Brian writes: This question, along with one about the Employee Free Choice Act, should be one that is asked directly to Sarah Palin.

Brian, Sarah Palin will be addressing that question and many others from the media and the voters just as soon as she finishes receiving the education and training she needs to be a female candidate for high office.

We estimate she should be ready for an unscripted press conference around--say, the second week of November.

Stay tuned.

It bothers me that he said, "Today many women work to help support their families..."
Many women are the SOLE support of their families. Why did he have to add that extra "to help"?
Most men in America aren't supporting their families by themselves, but he never would have said, "Today many men work to help support their families."

This is funny -- you make it seem like the issue is just a matter of paying women equally for the same job. Which, in part, it is, and of course women working the same jobs at the same level as men should be making the same salaries. But that's not where Obama and the current Democratic platform stop -- they want equal pay for "equal work". Which, in case you can't penetrate the shorthand, actually means "equal pay" for _what the government determines to be_ "equal work". And that's a recipe for disaster.

Of course, we shouldn't expect anything more from a candidate whose promised tax increases on the rich and corporations he now says will have to be delayed until the economy is in better shape -- a tacit admission that even he realizes his proposed tax changes will hurt the economy.

I have every confidence in John McCain producing pay equity as president.

In no time, he'll try to make sure corporate America is paying EVERYONE 77 cents instead of a dollar for a dollar's worth of work. That'll make money nice and tight and bring inflation under control so the millionaire's millions keep their spending power.

Just pretend I'm doing a Henry Gibson imitation, and read them as "verrrrry eennterrrresssttting"

I think you mean Arte Johnson.

Wonder if Ruth Buzzi and JoAnne Worley only got paid 77% as much as Arte and Henry?

This is funny -- you make it seem like the issue is just a matter of paying women equally for the same job.

That's because it is, jackass -- Ledbetter was getting paid less than men doing the same job, even some with less seniority than her.

Of course "women working the same jobs at the same level as men should be making the same salaries." But in Ledbetter's case -- and if you think she's alone I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you -- she didn't. And Republican policy is just fine with that.

You're projecting, Gregory. I'm not the one throwing epithets around. And I wasn't referring to a single case, but to the overall policy that Obama made clear at the Democratic convention would be his goal: equal pay for equal work. That particular phrase has been around for decades and there can't be much confusion about what it really means.

Again, you attempt to demonize what is merely a difference in approach. The vast majority of Republicans -- and I know a lot of them -- are not fine with women working the same jobs at the same level as men but not making the same salaries. Republican policy is officially not "fine with that", either. The significant disagreement is with the proper method of rectifying the problem. Personally, I think the Republican party takes too much of a gloves-off approach, but I'm not terribly happy about the Democrats' insane trust in government to do the right thing. And the extension to comparing different types of jobs that would inevitably follow a Democratic initiative along those lines is distasteful in the extreme.

Gregory, you really need to calm down, take your meds, and gain a sense of humor. About something.