I love how he just laughs his way through a very serious statement... "She asked why I wanted to - teehee - discriminate against women." He laughed it off like it was nothing.. like it wasn't a woman echoing the thoughts of MANY women in this country, who do not want McCain to represent us. And did you notice how after he said that, there was a bit of silence (on both their parts). I think because both of them know that it's true, McCain does discriminate against women... and he didn't have a real answer for that. All he said was that she said that, and that he said that's not true, he believes in equal opportunity for all in this country, and that the overall point was just that he wants to hear from everyone, even those who disagree. So I guess he wants to hear what you have to say but you'll be lucky if he actually gives a shit or gives you a real response.

Such a skeezy, calcualted, assholish response to a very real concern. And he actually tries to couch it as "oh, but I respect the American people, and open political dialog in this country!"

If he truly did that, he wouldn't have made such a light, dismissive, and obfuscating reaction to this woman's very serious concerns about how the lives of American women would be affected (effected?) in a McCain presidency.

Wow, what a pig. But I don't know why I should be surprised, after what he said about his wife.

I just think it's awkward that her defining characteristic is being "very attractive." Does that make her political stances any more or less important? No.

Do they record town hall meetings? I imagine so. If so, I'd love to see that actual exchange.

Wow. That was one of the most awkward laughs Ive ever heard... Awesome.

I also liked how it looked like Stewart wanted to fight McCain on the fact that he seems to think (or at want us to think) the Republican Party represents the same ideals as the Lincoln Republican party did, but he let it slide.

Oh, Jon. There's no need to be so nice to "Rumpelstiltskin".

Don't sleep people. This guy doesn't have what's best for "attractive young women" in mind.

Or the plain and homely ones, either. What a dickhead!

I do wish Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and the other media whores would get off their knees for this character and get over their collective man-crush. Just yesterday morning on MSNBC Morning Joe, Matthews gushed about how McCain ran such a clean campaign. Maybe if Matthews had pulled his head out of his ass during the early primaries, he would have noticed that McCain spent the early part of the campaign smearing fellow Republitard Mitt Romney.

What's really annoying is the way Jon Stewart fawns over the old goat, too.

i cant believe the republican women in congress voted against the equal pay act - i cant believe people continue to vote in these people who have interpreted the constitution to mean support commerce at all costs, which is pretty much what republicans do

i still think it was significant that mccain was not in dc to vote on this bill - if he was there i think he wouldve had no choice but to vote for the act as a presidential candidate, therefore he chose not to be there at all

arbitrista or anyone - who what, what did mccain say about his wife?

i cant believe the republican women in congress voted against the equal pay act - i cant believe people continue to vote in these people who have interpreted the constitution to mean support commerce at all costs, which is pretty much what republicans do

i still think it was significant that mccain was not in dc to vote on this bill - if he was there i think he wouldve had no choice but to vote for the act as a presidential candidate, therefore he chose not to be there at all

arbitrista or anyone - who what, what did mccain say about his wife?

i cant believe the republican women in congress voted against the equal pay act - i cant believe people continue to vote in these people who have interpreted the constitution to mean support commerce at all costs, which is pretty much what republicans do

i still think it was significant that mccain was not in dc to vote on this bill - if he was there i think he wouldve had no choice but to vote for the act as a presidential candidate, therefore he chose not to be there at all

arbitrista or anyone - who what, what did mccain say about his wife?

enhanced vibes:
She made a comment that his hair was getting thin, he responded "At least I don't plaster on makeup like a trollop, you cunt."

*shudders* That alone is enough for me to shake my fist at the tv whenever I see him.

oh man, when he says "its very important to hear people..." he should just finish that sentence truthfully ...so I can ignore them and look at their attractive boobs.

I went to high school with McCain's kids (the white ones - the non-white, adopted kids didn't get much attention, then as now), and it's so surreal to see this guy actually having a shot at the US presidency.

He's terrifying.

That was a creepy exchange.

I guess McSame is saying that he believes in "equal opportunity," but he objects to laws enforcing equal opportunity. He supports equality in theory, but not in practice. Jeez, that's lame.

Stewart's asking of questions that made McCain squirm caused ME to chuckle quite a bit as I watched this last night.

Did anyone else see the story about how someone confronted McCain at a recent press conference about calling his wife a cunt?

story here:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080501/NEWS/80501035

Also, Courtney, "acknowledge" is misspelled in the 1st sentence of the original post. I'm not trying to be a nit-picky a-hole; I'd want someone to call my attention to it if it were me.

I forgot to mention the two best parts about the story that I linked to:

1. The person who asked McCain point blank about his comment is a Baptist minister.

2. The link has a video of the whole exchange.

Enjoy!

It's an odd little verbal tick that some men seem to have, having to qualify women they don't agree with, or that they are criticising, as 'attractive'. It seems to be a way of being polite, a way of saying 'I didn't agree with her but I have nothing against her; she was very attractive'.

A nice little pat on the head to soften the blow of having a man tell you he disagrees with you.

My boyfriend did it not so long ago, when he was describing some girl who wasn't particularly bright or interesting that he had to work with in one of his classes. He said something like 'She was quite pretty, but she didn't really know what she was talking about'. Well, why did I need to know that she was pretty? Grrr. Thankfully he doesn't say things like that very often!

I had a professor of ethics who talked about women, including his wife, in this exact same way, and it was all I could do to sit through his classes. Blegh!

You forgot the best part- where Jon Stewart suggested Mc Cain get a t-shirt that reads "I don't discriminate against women" to which Mc Cain replied "one that glows in the dark."

I actually thought it was kind of funny, but I knew it was probably being discussed here, and sure enough...

To tell you the truth, I don't agree with legislation over pay equity either, and I do support equal pay for equal work. If a company doesn't promote or underpays its female employees, that's what class action law suits are for.

Besides, the trend is clearly changing. Women just out of college, entering the workforce, are being hired at higher pay rates than in the past, and I am confident that the pay gap will close. Some professions (such as marketing) women are entering the field at a higher pay rate than their male counterparts.

More important than passing legislation is teaching girls and young women to be more aggressive and outspoken when entering the workforce. Too often we (myself included) let ourselves be stepped upon and overlooked. I had to learn how to stand up for myself when I was a sex worker, but before that I spent many years letting others walk over me in the various jobs I held.

The legislation McCain opposed gave workers a larger window to file such lawsuits.

It didn't a government mandate for pay equity at all.

At least, that's what I read.

wasn't*

I'm the worst internet poster ever.

French Kiss, class actions are hard, take forever, and many, many, many times a class can't even get approved, (usually it at least has to have over 18 people to even get started), and despite appearances that there seems to be lawyers everywhere, a good class action lawyer with enough time and money to pursue it is often impossible to find. In sum, class actions are absolutely and in no way there for everyone and everyone's statute of limitations for pay discrimination should start to run whenever they know out about it, in my opinion, of course.

"More important than passing legislation is teaching girls and young women to be more aggressive and outspoken when entering the workforce. Too often we (myself included) let ourselves be stepped upon and overlooked."

Unfortunately, I am starting to see how this is true. However, in an equal world I think workers' work would speak for itself and the better workers would get the promotions. I've read aggressiveness (at least physical) is one of the only traits consistently and significantly found in men more than women. Requiring aggressiveness to get ahead or even be treated equally rather than just good and hard work kind of makes the work world more beneficial towards men, particularly a certain type. And really, in the end why should it be the less aggressive people who have to change?

Well, his "attractive" characterization is pretty annoying, but I can't really blame him for not taking the question seriously.

"More important than passing legislation is teaching girls and young women to be more aggressive and outspoken when entering the workforce."

Why is it that women are deficient and need to "be more aggressive and outspoken"? Perhaps it is men who are the ones who need to change because they are TOO aggressive and outspoken.

I think the most disturbing element of this is that McCain was actually thrown by Stewart's question as to what she said. To McCain, he was more interested in talking about what she looked like and what she was wearing. It's pretty telling that he did not expect to be asked what she said, what she SAYS is less important to him than surface appearance and his gesture of looking like he cared what she had to say. McCain expressed a confused moment of "What? Someone cares what a young woman actually had to say?"

Hah, I love this post.

Don't sleep!

Maybe "assertive and outspoken" would have been a better choice of words. And no, we don't have to change, but I think it would serve us well to do so.

Of course our work should speak for itself, but if you work for a large company you may not get recognition for it no matter how good a job you do.

As for the bill McCain didn't sign, I suppose I'll have to read over the details a bit more before I can comment further.

The legislation McCain opposed gave workers a larger window to file such lawsuits.

Depends on what you're comparing it to. It restores the exact "window" to file the lawsuits that workers had had for decades, so if you're comparing it to the pre-Ledbetter period, there's no change.

However, if you're comparing it to post-Ledbetter, it definitely does provide a "larger window", since it at least gives workers time to find out that there was pay discrimination going on. Under Ledbetter, you'd basically have to hack into payroll computers to get the information you'd need to decide whether to file a suit at all. Ledbetter makes the equal pay provisions of the Civil Rights Act a dead letter.

As to McCain himself, the fact that he's constantly on about his "straight talk" (has anyone else noticed the other interpretation of that epxression?) tells you all you need to know. Only a person who is especially full of shit spends so much time telling you how honest he is.

Clarification/correction:

Under Ledbetter, you'd basically have to hack into the payroll computers in order to get the information you need in time to file suit.

Ledbetter essentially changed the rules normally applied in pay discrimination cases, so that the limitation period in pay discrimination cases functions the same way it does in promotion/discharge discrimination cases.

The reason there had long been a difference in how the 180-day limit was handled between these two types of cases is relatively obvious: you know immediately if you are fired, or if your promotion is denied. It's a discrete, onetime act of which the employee is almost immediately informed.

For pay determinations, the pre-Ledbetter clock started running with each discriminatory paycheck, because employees generally are not immediately made aware that they're being paid less for the same work, and in fact are often (illegally) forbidden from discussing their pay with their colleagues. Each discriminatory paycheck was considered a discrete act of discrimination.

Thanks for the clarification, Elise.

What does he mean with the glow in the dark shirt? To me it means that he wants to take this "attractive young woman" somewhere dark - like the bedroom. Am I misunderstanding that? Because to me, that shows his character - this attractive woman isn't cut out for politics, she should be at home cooking his dinner and taking care of his needs. Ugh.

Also, to the commenter who said that women need to be more aggresive and that is what class action suits are for. First, I have worked in several areas (specifically civilian military positions) that were predominately male. When a female is more aggressive and assertive, she is not seen as a good worker or more seriously, she is labeled a bitch. That is not always the case, but it is happens more frequently than you might think. Also, class action suits aren't always an option either. There are 15 people in my current company and only 3 of us are female. How do you suppose I handle discrimination in the workplace?

Who wants to bet that if we find video of this exchange that she actually asked a more pointed question than "why do you discriminate against women" - because that one was just too easy to deny.

I took the "glow in the dark t-shirt" comment to mean to mean that he wanted to have sex with her. Not sure if that's what he was implying, but if it was, you should keep in mind that it was the Daily Show, and was probably made half-in jest.

He never said that attractive women aren't cut out for politics or implied that the woman's place was at home, tending to her husband and children. I can assure you that if a man finds a woman attractive, he'll want to have sex with her (or at least think about it) even if he sees her as a respected colleague or superior. I'm sure many women here have husbands or boyfriends who think of them sexually while maintaining uptmost respect for them. It is a natural reaction, like crying during a sad scene in a movie. Given that it was on Comedy Central (not CNN) I took it in the jovial spirit I'm sure it was intended.

I took the glow in the dark thing to mean that McCain was trying to lighten the tension and sucks at making off-hand jokes. The way he kept answering questions with tired political rhetoric and his general jumpiness (how many times did Stewart tell him to get back in his seat?), I got the feeling he was very uncomfortable in the Comedy Central atmosphere where people take things a bit more lightly.

Also, the Daily Show is not known for its support of the Republican party (to understate a fact), and some of McCain's comments show that he was worried about the types of questions he would be asked because of his party's position. So I don't think the laughter was meant to be insulting; to be honest, he was laughing nervously throughout the entire program.

"It's pretty telling that he did not expect to be asked what she said, what she SAYS is less important to him than surface appearance and his gesture of looking like he cared what she had to say."

On this point, I think he was surprised about being asked because he started this little story to show how "open minded" he was, and it backfired. He didn't expect to be interrupted by Stewart and asked to deviate into uncomfortable territory.

I didn't like the way McCain handled himself in this interview, and I don't support McCain. But personally, I think everyone's reading waaaaaaaay too much into this.

Posted by: r0cket- [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2008 04:59 PM

I can't really blame him for not taking the question seriously.

Why?

You know he's probably omitting some details. She probably elaborated on the question with specific examples like his opposition to equal pay legislation and reproductive freedoms.

And evidence shows he doesn't take the issue seriously. Even if the question wasn't asked as well as it could have been, and we have no way of knowing, the kind of person I'd vote for would use the query as a springboard to discussing issues related to women on which he has taken strong stances on.