By Susan Duclos
Regular readers and followers know that I am no fan of Barack Obama, his polices, his agenda nor his socialistic, class warfare instigating, economy killing ideology.
There are so many things to criticize about his presidency, from his policies being responsible for the weakest recovery in U.S. history, his agenda being responsible for insurance premiums increasing massively from Obamacare, his gun control agenda... etc..... you get the point. I am not a fan and I find there are dozens of reasons to criticize his job performance.
With that said... come on liberals, really?
Liberals will argue to justify Obama's ignorant references and his inability to know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle from a fully-automatic rifle. They excuse the dismal labor participation numbers, the slow GDP growth, his lies about Obamacare, his constant desire to raise taxes on the very people that keep the economy running, but they want to give him hell over calling a woman "the best-looking attorney general in the country."
Really?
His comments:
"You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake,” Mr. Obama said in introducing Attorney General Kamala Harris to the crowd at the Atherton home of John D. Goldman, a philanthropist and Levi Strauss heir, and his wife, Marcia Goldman.In politics, one expects supporters of the opposite party to jump on gaffes, comments, mistakes and lies, but the surprise came from the liberal reactions to a legitimate compliment.
Mr. Obama then went on: “She also happens to be by far the best-looking attorney general in the country.”
As the audience reacted with surprise and applause, Mr. Obama defended himself. “It’s true!” he said. “Come on!”
Robin Abcarian wrote on the Web site of The Los Angeles Times that the comment was “more wolfish than sexist,” and “may be a little problem he needs to work on.”
Joan Walsh wrote on Salon that “my stomach turned over” when she heard about the comment. “Those of us who’ve fought to make sure that women are seen as more than ornamental – and that includes the president – should know better than to rely on flattering the looks of someone as formidable as Harris,” she said.
Jonathan Chait said on New York magazine’s Web site that it was insensitive even if some did not see the problem. “It’s not a compliment,” he wrote. “And for a president who has become a cultural model for many of his supporters in so many other ways, the example he’s setting here is disgraceful.”
This is a little overboard. I understand the need for equal pay for women and men, equal job opportunities for women, but this insistence that a woman's appearance can never be mentioned by a man because it is sexist, disgraceful, insensitive... is a big smelly pile of horse manure.
Did these folks throw a hissy fit when Obama introduced HUD secretary Shaun Donovan last February, by saying "There he is, the good-looking guy in the front here."
Nope, they didn't.
More examples:
At a speech last March, Obama pointed out his secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, by calling him "a good-looking guy.”
A couple of months ago, Obama gave a shout-out to the "outstanding Secretary of the Navy," Ray Mabus. "There he is right there — the good-looking guy over at the end."
Obama even extended his favorite compliment to the Stanley Cup champion Pittsburgh Penguins. "I have to say all of you look pretty good without your playoff beards," Obama said during a White House ceremony. "They're pretty good-looking guys without all that.”Did we seethe same level of outrage from any of the examples above? Nope, we didn't.
When did it become such a crime to compliment a woman... does it take away from her achievements? No.
Furthermore, how is it "equality" when a man can compliment another man on his looks but a woman isn't entitled to the same courtesy?
Why can a woman not take equal pride in her appearance as she does in her work accomplishments? Why does it have to be one or the other instead of being able to be proud of both?
In the name of equality in the workforce, these liberals are actually stripping the right to be equal in other aspects of a woman's life.