Perhaps John McCain doesn't see anything that someone with a vagina could do as "equal work," and thus not deserving of this "equal pay" he speaks of. That's the only theory that makes his actions and his words line up that I can think of.

I am totally hot for this blog. Yeah, tee off on that John McCain. I love feminists, and I am allegedly a misogynist! I am all for equal pay though. Bring back the ERA!

It is insane that anyone could take McCain more seriously than people, who most agree are nutters, like LaRouche or Ron Paul when McCain has said stuff that is just as stupid as anything those fellas have ever said.

I mean seriously look at what the guy said about Chelsea Clinton when she was just a little kid, or about his own wife? How is it that more people "know" that Sen. Obama is a "secret Muslim" than know that McCain hates women, even one's he has kids with?

This ad does not tell the whole story. Although I don't agree with the law that was in question in this case, it clearly stated that the statute of limitations is 180 days. It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the law, not make new legislation. Since the stipulation was so clear, there really was no matter to consider. To change the law required a vote in the Senate, but it didn't go through (AND the Senate is controlled by the democrats). I agree that this woman's situation sucks and is totally unfair, but we can't blame the Court. The law needs to be changed, and it needs to be done in the way that the Constitution prescribes. On another note, interestingly, I've read in several sources now that female staffers on the Obama campaign are paid less than their male counterparts, while on McCain's staff they are paid more. Although feminism is in large part an issue that evokes a lot of passion and emotion, we must not be duped by these kinds of reports that appeal to "shock value" without examining the facts and the broader context.

This ad does not tell the whole story. Although I don't agree with the law that was in question in this case, it clearly stated that the statute of limitations is 180 days. It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the law, not make new legislation. Since the stipulation was so clear, there really was no matter to consider. To change the law required a vote in the Senate, but it didn't go through (AND the Senate is controlled by the democrats). I agree that this woman's situation sucks and is totally unfair, but we can't blame the Court. The law needs to be changed, and it needs to be done in the way that the Constitution prescribes. On another note, interestingly, I've read in several sources now that female staffers on the Obama campaign are paid less than their male counterparts, while on McCain's staff they are paid more. Although feminism is in large part an issue that evokes a lot of passion and emotion, we must not be duped by these kinds of reports that appeal to "shock value" without examining the facts and the broader context.

This ad does not tell the whole story. Although I don't agree with the law that was in question in this case, it clearly stated that the statute of limitations is 180 days. It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the law, not make new legislation. Since the stipulation was so clear, there really was no matter to consider. To change the law required a vote in the Senate, but it didn't go through (AND the Senate is controlled by the democrats). I agree that this woman's situation sucks and is totally unfair, but we can't blame the Court. The law needs to be changed, and it needs to be done in the way that the Constitution prescribes. On another note, interestingly, I've read in several sources now that female staffers on the Obama campaign are paid less than their male counterparts, while on McCain's staff they are paid more. Although feminism is in large part an issue that evokes a lot of passion and emotion, we must not be duped by these kinds of reports that appeal to "shock value" without examining the facts and the broader context.

This ad does not tell the whole story. Although I don't agree with the law that was in question in this case, it clearly stated that the statute of limitations is 180 days. It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the law, not make new legislation. Since the stipulation was so clear, there really was no matter to consider. To change the law required a vote in the Senate, but it didn't go through (AND the Senate is controlled by the democrats). I agree that this woman's situation sucks and is totally unfair, but we can't blame the Court. The law needs to be changed, and it needs to be done in the way that the Constitution prescribes. On another note, interestingly, I've read in several sources now that female staffers on the Obama campaign are paid less than their male counterparts, while on McCain's staff they are paid more. Although feminism is in large part an issue that evokes a lot of passion and emotion, we must not be duped by these kinds of reports that appeal to "shock value" without examining the facts and the broader context.

um, ok apologies for posting that multiple times.

Logrus, Im not sure how this applies to LaRouche or Paul at all.....

Bee, the point is that the Supreme Court had the ability to decide whether that 180 days started when the discrimination started, or whether that count-down started when the woman realized she was being discriminated against.

They chose to make it start when the discrimination started, meaning that unless you're actually told that they're going to be underpaying you because you're female, there's almost no chance you'll know in time to begin a case. Any reasonable interpretation would have started that count-down from when the discrimination came to light.

McCain's claim that he voted against the Fair Pay act because it would have increased litigation is patently ridiculous, since it would simply revert the law to the interpretation that had existed for years before the Ledbetter case got to the Supreme Court.

I just did a post on working women issues over at the California NOW blog: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/07/it-seems-like-e.html but I barely touched on fair pay, so glad to see this here!

To change the law required a vote in the Senate, but it didn't go through (AND the Senate is controlled by the democrats).

Bee, to blame the failure of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on the Democrats, as you seem to do here, is incorrect. The Senate Republicans blocked a vote on the bill, which takes only 40 votes to do. The only Democrat who voted against cloture was Harry Reid, and that was for a procedural reason. So the law very well could have passed if the Republicans hadn't blocked it.

John McCain, who claims in this video to have a record of supporting equal pay, didn't even bother to show up for the Ledbetter vote.

Whoa. Youtube at it's finest: a platform for slash n burn propaganda hit pieces - long on hyperbole, and short on facts. Who was the editor? michael moore?

(multiple posting) Bee had the correct take on this subject. The 180 day time frame was one of two fulcrums this case rotated around. The other was the 'quaint' notion that it is incumbent upon people involved in egregious situations to take 'reasonable & decisive' action to right the wrong. Or, by their inaction, to acquiesce to the 'status quo', and give their tacit approval.

Ms. Ledbetter waited 16 years, and then after she retired. Not a very compelling 'urgency' for compensation based upon the law the way it is written.

But what is totally overlooked is the obamanator's hypocrisy in this matter when compared to McCain's documented championship of 'putting his money where his mouth is.'

The obamanator simply talks out of both sides of his mouth....

Loco, you can make a point without name calling. If you don't like Obama, just say you don't like him or support his ideas or disagree withs something he said. Name calling to me is unnecessary. I liked both democratic candidates in case you are wondering.

Locomotive,

It is very misleading to say that Ms. Ledbetter "waited" sixteen years to bring her claim. She was unaware that she was being paid less for those sixteen years becuase Goodyear had a policy expressly forbidding employees to discuss how much they were paid. She only found out from an anonymous tip, after which she immediatley initiated her lawsuit.

Prior to this case the court held that every discriminatory paycheck was an act of discrimination, and thus 180 days started over with each paycheck. Unlike what John McCain claims, this system is actaully less likely to cause frivilous lawsuits. Under the new system employees have to bring suits as soon as they have the smallest inkling that they may be being discriminated against, otherwise the statute of limitations will run out.

On the flip side, all coroporations have to do now to freely discriminate is hide their behavior for 180 days. When you make it clear that you will fire employees for discussing how much they earn, that shouldn't be that hard to do.

And, regardless of your opinion of Obama in general, on this particular issue he has not moved at all; both he and Clinton flew in from their campaign stops to vote for fair pay.