Obama Again Bashes Fathers
June 17th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
As most of you know, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama decided to mark Father's Day by bashing fathers, particularly black fathers. Obama said fathers have "have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men." He is pictured above during the speech.
The Associated Press article on the speech is here. The speech itself is much harsher, and can be viewed here.
I just did an interview on KFYI AM 550 in Phoenix about this issue, and a few of the points I made are below:
1) Obama put all blame for family breakdown squarely on men. This is beyond ludicrous. It's doubtful that many dads wake up in the morning and say to themselves, "My child loves me and needs me, my wife/girlfriend loves me and needs me--I'm outta here."
Despite the stereotype of the feckless and irresponsible male, research shows that the vast majority of divorces as well as many break-ups of unmarried couples are initiated by women, not by men. Yes, some mothers have good reasons for these breakups. Yet, as Jonetta Rose Barras, the African-American author of Whatever Happened to Daddy's Little Girl, explains, many black fathers are simply being "kicked to the curb."
Another major part of black fatherlessness is that the women often have kids without ever having any intention of having a father in the kids' lives.
2) The Urban League's 2006 report on the state of black America concluded that the child support system and its abuses often drive African-American men out of their children's lives, and either underground or into crime. To learn more about that report's findings, see my co-authored column Hillary Clinton’s Youth Opportunity Agenda Will Help Low-Income Fathers (Black Press USA Network, 1/25/08).
3) When a divorced or separated mother does not want her children's father around anymore, she can usually push him out, particularly if the father does not earn enough money to pay for legal representation. Courts tilt heavily towards mothers in awarding custody, and enforce fathers' visitation rights indifferently. In most states, mothers are free to move their children hundreds or thousands of miles away from their fathers, often permanently destroying the fathers' bonds with their children.
4) The benefits that involved black fathers--even divorced or separated ones--can provide their children are substantial. For example, a recent study of low-income African-American and Hispanic families by Boston College found that when nonresident fathers are involved in their adolescent children's lives, the incidence of substance abuse, violence, crime, and truancy decreases markedly. The study's lead author, professor Rebekah Levine Coley, says the study found involved nonresident fathers to be "an important protective factor for adolescents."
5) Obama's comments are pandering, using the specter of the absent/deadbeat dad as a way to curry favor with women voters. He has made these types of claims at various times over the past year or so, but this is the most highly-publicized and hostile.
I would also add that in our tendency to put all absent fathers--particularly black ones--in the "deserter/deadbeat" category, we often misclassify fathers who either were not absent or did not desert their families. A couple prominent examples can be found in my blog posts Dick Allen & the Misleading 'Paternal Abandonment Script' and The Bronx Is Burning, Billy Martin, & the Misleading 'Paternal Abandonment Script'.
"));
19 queries. 0.671 seconds.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I agree with Obama on many issues, but on this one he has me stumped. I cannot see how a man in his position who has seen the state of the African-American community would resort to pandering on such an issue. It is clear that within that community for the many instances in which black fathers just up and leave just as many black mothers push the fathers away, engage with men who clearly will not take responsibility for their children or more unfortunately do not know who the father is or simply will not tell the man he is the father.
This situation is further compounded by the fact that the sentiments Obama expressed are astoundingly common within the community and that probably plays a large role in black fathers' ability and willingness to stay involved in their children's lives.
I agree that black men do need to change, however, so do black women. Blaming the absent parent for one's inability or unwillingness to raise one's children is just as low as abandoning the kid.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Abandonment-- when these dads don't have a right to be in their kid's lives anyway?
June 17th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I hope black men are listening and not thinking "He isn't talking about me". On the other hand, I do think Obama can take status of males to the abyss faster, which needs to happen before men wake up to reality - sadly enough. Small problems, or "their" problems really don't get attention from men.
Yet, I hope Obama is made to regret his stance at the voting booth.
McCain-Obama 08!
(whats the difference anyway?)
June 17th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I just think black women should "keep it in their pants".
June 17th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
That was, BTW, fascetious (sp?)
June 17th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Points 1,2, 3, and 5 appear to be (and I assume are meant to be) critiques of Obama's stance on the role of black fathers.
However, Point 4 seems to be exactly the point that Obama is trying to make. That substantial benefits will be gained by the presence of a father in a child's life.
What's the point of the dichotomy within the article?
June 17th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I have to admit that while I'm not surprised at this tact, I am extremely disappointed in Obama for these remarks. I had actually listened to this speech hoping I wasn't hearing what I was hearing, but....
I am an Obama supporter but his attitude certainly indicates he is completely out of touch with the laws in this country as they relate to the family.
Wonder if there is someway to bring him up to date.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I gave about $500 to Obama's primary campaign, in part, because I thought he was interesting and had a fresh perspective. (I have to admit, I also was motivated by the horrific specter of seeing Hillary every day on the national stage for 4 or 8 years). I am always skeptical, but I thought there might be at least some truth to the idea that he would not be "politics as usual," as he likes to sell himself.
I am extremely disappointed in Obama now that he has given this speech. And that is ironic if the political pundits in the MSM are to be believed. Since I am white, I am supposed to be happy to hear Obama criticize black guys. NOPE!
Why? Because I can see what he did for what it was. Nothing more than blatant political pandering to the feminist vote - e.g., middle aged disaffected white women who are looking for scapegoats for their unhappiness.
Certainly I believe there are aspects of black culture that are destructive. Gansta culture comes to mind. But I know that this is not the prevailing aspect of black culture. In fact, my neighbors are black and I cannot find much that differentiates their "culture" from my own. Indeed, I'd say we pretty share the same culture. I am mindful that, since they are 20 years older than I am, I'm sure they have seen racism and dealt with barriers I have not dealt with. I'm sure their son has had an easier time as well. But, when we chat, which is often, I always walk away feeling damn lucky that I have such nice neighbors.
No, Obama did not have to do this. If it were necessary, it could have waited until after he has a real position of authority from which to talk - the Presidency. His timing makes it obvious that he is pandering. And, unfortunately, that is "politics as usual." Worse, it's gender-political ax grinding politics as usual.
I'm still giving him a slither of the benefit of the doubt, because I am aware that the narcissist Hillary kept her campaign going the final 2 or 3 months for the sole purpose of holding Obama to the far left, giving him less to maneuver to the center as all Presidential candidates need to do for the general election. It should be no secret to anyone that Hillary did this because she's hoping to see Obama loose the general election and give herself a chance to run in 2012 with an "I told you so" attitude. So, he's making some quick moves in desperation to compensate. But, again, I'm only giving him a slither of an opening at this point.
If he wants to get back on the good side of men who are aware of the environment in which they live (black, white, and whatever), he should not make a speech to a NOW audience about how it's time for a certain group of women to stop claiming victimhood and look at how their own behavior results in bad outcomes.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Sorry: that last sentence should read, "he should now make a speech to a NOW audience ..... "
June 17th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I created a blog post at Mr. Obama's website.
Yes, Children Need Two Parents and Family Law is largely responsible for Father Absence
I applaud Mr. Obama for stating that "They [Children] need another parent."
Children Need Two Parents!
NO government should be allowed to interfere with children's rights or their parent's rights. Unfortunately such is not the case in the United States of America.
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama does not address this point. Instead, Mr. Obama has inaccurately (and conveniently) placed the blame for father absence solely on fathers.
Despite the stereotype of the feckless and irresponsible male, research shows that the vast majority of divorces as well as many break-ups of unmarried couples are initiated by women, not by men.
Is Mr. Obama dismissive of the opinion of Jonetta Rose Barras, the African-American author of Whatever Happened to Daddy's Little Girl, who states that many black fathers are simply being "kicked to the curb."
When a divorced or separated mother does not want her children's father around anymore, she can usually push him out, particularly if the father does not earn enough money to pay for legal representation. Courts tilt heavily towards mothers in awarding custody, and enforce fathers' visitation rights indifferently. In most states, mothers are free to move their children hundreds or thousands of miles away from their fathers, often permanently destroying the fathers' bonds with their children.
For the sake of the children, we must have a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting. A rebuttable presumption for shared parenting can become a requirement for states to be eligible for federal payments to states (related to child support collected by the states).
We must also remove the financial incentives for mothers to have children with more than one father created by current child support formulas. Why should a mother who has children with two different fathers generally receive more child support than a mother who has two children with the same father?
June 17th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Choose your demons
Far away : McCain looks like he will demonize Iran, 1/2 the world away
Closer to home: Obama looks like our brothers in our own backyards are the ones he will demonize and sacrifice on the altar of electability (plus the Senate legislation he is proposing! )
What ugly electoral choices for American men!
June 17th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
To be fair the black community is particularly blighted by some of the very worst types of "fathers". A white politician obviously cannot criticise black fathers so prehaps Obama feels he has a responsibly to be honest here and say what white politicians are not allowed to say.
That said, the comments are still rather dissapointing as they appear to lack any balance. it is perfectly ok to criticise fathers so long as you criticise the terrible mothers out there too and the Court system.
I head that Matt O'Connor was to meet with Obama. If it is true then that would still put him miles ahead of most other politican of note here in the UK as they have completely shunned F4J.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
it beyond me how any male with an iq above 50 could ever consider voting for a democrat, any democrat. my mind cannot wrap around the above posts. pt barnum was right as rain.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
The problem is not that he criticized fathers, some deserve it. there's plenty of black men that have children with multiple women and never bother to marry any of them or support any of their kids. The problem is the lack of balance. did you EVER hear anyone criticizing mothers on Mother's Day? Nope. and Obama went out of his way to glorify mothers in this speech, as if every mother is little miss perfect:
"We need to help all the mothers out there who are raising these kids by themselves; the mothers who drop them off at school, go to work, pick up them up in the afternoon, work another shift, get dinner, make lunches, pay the bills, fix the house, and all the other things it takes both parents to do. So many of these women are doing a heroic job, but they need support. "
what about all the moms on drugs or welfare or they're out sleeping around with boyfriend number 17 while they neglect their five kids. how about the ones i see on TV asking Maury for paternity tests and they're not sure who the daddy is but they've narrowed the list down to ONLY 11 possibilities? they're not all angels.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Agreed donnie w, but I really don't see much difference between the two parties anymore. I mean really what has George W. done to help the plight of father's during his 4 years in office?
I am really not sure if I will cast a vote this year, our choices are pretty horendous.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Does Obama support mandatory DNA testing of newborns to establish paternity at birth?
I was in my doctor’s office the other day watching Maury Povich while I waited to have my BP tested. It featured another woman who was up to guess #4 about who the father of her child was. For those who might have missed it- Maury has had women on his show who don’t know who the father of their child is. The show pays for DNA testing as they proceed down the list of potential candidates, announcing the test results on-air in front of the baby mamma and presumed baby daddy. I think the record is something like 12 wrong guesses before finally identifying the father on lucky guess #13. There’s a clip of the final announcement floating around the net. Suffice it to say Obama might want to turn around and lecture his adoring audience of women about promiscuity, unprotected sex out of wedlock, and contraception. It is unclear to me how he can hold Baby Daddy Guess #13 accountable as an absent father when he wasn’t in the mother’s top ten picks.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
oops! My bad. Jimbo was posting while I was typing. Anyway, I think Sholanda holds the record. It was her 13th appearance on Maury's show, but her 17th guess (wrong again!). I think my point still stands. The video clip is on You Tube.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Prison Race. It's a book about how American society is in a "race" to put black men in jail. How can Obama expect fathers to be present in their children's lives when HE is responsible for creating laws that put men in jail for very long periods of time for non-violent and arguably victimless crimes? What a hypocrite. Prisons are 90% men and there are more black men in prison than any other.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Obama's change will make it worse for all fathers. Obama panders to the feminists. What does Obama know about a father's role? How is Obama going to vote on IVAWA? How would Obama like to live on 50% of the minimum wage? Obama has no compassion, no common sense and no decency to demean poor black fathers this way.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
He won't make president. He will self destruct. This is just one issue of many that could bring his house of cards down.
Hillary only put her campaign on hold. She appears to have a feeling that something could cause his political collapse. Just wait and see.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I was disappointed in Obama. This story got picked-up all over the mainstream media and none (that I saw) reflected the MRA viewpoints.
For example, I submitted an on-line post to the applicable story in The New York Times but they refused to post it although they chose to post hundreds of others. I merely politely pointed out that not all fatherless families were abandoned by their dads ,but that some of the dads were forced out of their children's lives by vindictive ex-wives and girlfriends. This is apparently a forbidden viewpoint at the NYT.
A political character in an historical novel that I am reading now set just prior to World War II put it this way, "I don't know why Stalin needs a secret police because we can control American public opinion through the media."
June 17th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
re: It is unclear to me how he can hold Baby Daddy Guess #13 accountable as an absent father when he wasn’t in the mother’s top ten picks.
...as you know, men are a safe target for bashing. Criticize women and there will be Hell to pay. These gutless politicians will do nothing to upset the feminists. Women are blameless and sinless - don't you know that?
June 17th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I wasn't surprised at all by Obama here. At this point I think he can get away with anything. The media and liberals in this counrty are desperate to see a non-white male in the white house. Who cares what his politics are, he is a bi-racial candidate.
Fathertime, I don't know how you can say that this issue is one of the issues that could "bring his house of cards down." He is just reflecting the popular belief in our society, that most dads who are not part of their children's lives, are so as a result of their own choice, or unwillingness to take up the responsibiltiy. Phil Leigh's post illustrates this example. He said all he did was offer to give a reason as to why some men are not involved in their children's lives. This reason being that they were forced out by the ex-wife/girlfriend, but that is too taboo to merely mention that in our media and society at large.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Can you even image if he signified mothers day by ripping apart mothers?
June 17th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I don’t see much to complain about in this speech, after all, most of it is about how important dads are, which frankly is almost shocking coming out of a Democrat. What I do object to is that he doesn’t even momentarily mention that some fathers are driven out by the mothers, and that men have less incentive to stick around when living in a culture that constantly portrays fathers as being redundant. And the second thing I object to is this rather bizarre statement...
“But now, my life revolves around my two little girls. And what I think about is what kind of world I’m leaving them. Are they living in a county where..... yada, yada, yada....A country where, because they’re girls, they don’t have as much opportunity as boys do?"
Amazing. Why is an American Senator raising his girls all the way over in Saudi Arabia?
June 17th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I knew corporations gave money to these clowns running for president for obvious reasons, but I wondered what would possess a regular citizen to totally waste money like this and WHO would sucker for such a thing.
I guess I've seen one such example in an above poster .................................. UNBELIEVABLE
June 17th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Obama's position here is all about political strategy. He probably thinks he has the black vote locked up, and that black men will still vote for him anyway. So he might as well reach out to other constituencies, particularly white women, who will decide the race.
Much of Obama's appeal to white voters is that he is a black man who they can feel comfortable with. What better way of reinforcing that than claiming that other black men need to lift their game.
As I've said before, blaming men for the growing marginalisation of men from families is a bit like blaming the dodo for being driven to extinction. It's a textbook case of blaming the victim.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Obama, Bill Cosby, and others like Jesse Jackson should point out that there are many irresponsible fathers who need to "step up to the plate" and hit a homerun and be there for their kids. But at the same time they need to praise and give positive messages about Dads who work long days, provide financially and emotionally for their familes and children.
The responsible dads are really the "silent majority" who are so busy working, helping their kids with homework and sports or music that they don't have time to be in the media. These responsible dads are the "backbone" of America. When will they be recognized?
June 17th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Interesting that while his blame-casting rhetoric feels like it bashes dads, his solutions sound a bit more pro-dad. For example:
1. don't let child support money go to bureaucrats -- this would weaken the evil empires, state-by-state
2. a tax credit to dads who do pay -- as Glenn writes so often, the vast majority of dads do pay -- so this is basically child support relief for virtually all dads
3. a child needs 2 parents -- unless he is suggesting some alternative to the father?
No, if you read his words very, very carefully what you will see is that he put forth some tangible pro-dad proposals, but packaged them in the usual female-digestible dad-bashing rhetoric.
He is showing the signs of a gifted politician in that regard, I would say.
McCain has no position on fathers whatsoever as of the last time I looked.
Romney had the best and most explicit pro-dad positions of the leading contenders.
But all should remember that the President of this country is not a very powerful office. It really is not folks.
Lawful and vigorous state legislator take-out campaigns are the most direct way to break the grip of government on our families.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I'm a Obama supporter, but I completely disagree with him on this. First of all, I do agree that there's a Father problem in the black community, and I'm not so mad at Obama for pointing that out, however, as many have pointed out here there has to be checks and balances in any discussion of this topic. Black women and our corrupt family court system are at least half to blame for the dire state of affairs when it comes to the family unit in the black community.
Furthermore, what the devil is wrong with him? Father's Day should be reserved for the fathers who ARE involved in their children's lives, who love them and make sacrifices for them. Every other day out of the year is basically used to bash fathers in general about how terrible they are. Father's Day is the one day ALL fathers, including black fathers no matter how small a portion they may represent, should be honoured. What he should have done is used his speech to make examples of these wonderful black fathers instead of disgracing the many black men who are devoted to their kids on the one and only day that should be about appreciating and thanking them.
I'm extremely disappointed in Obama regarding this, and my support for him seems to be wavering more and more as time goes by. Just the other day I read in an article--I think its the same AP article Glenn has linked--where it says he either sponored or plan to sponsor some rather anti-men/father legislation. Since this is such an important issue for me, seriously if Obama continues to wage a full-fledged war against men/fathers this election season, I'm staying home in November. As an independent, some of his other views are already way way way too left wing for me and most other people I know who support him or are considering supporting him feel the same way ... which has led me to believe there might be other people out there who feel the same as us. He should not add anti-men/father - ism to the pot as well. He better thread carefully or this fairy tale might be over before it's begun.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
That is our political system. I think Obama has a lot of good intentions. However, in almost all cases, to get through our system and reach high office you have to sell out. A couple weeks ago Obama pandered to AIPAC. This time, to feminists. It's really disconcerting to see.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
What Obama said was not original. It is almost word for word stolen from Bill Cosby.
Is it father bashing? Maybe. Depends on one's point of view.
The fact is that from inception many black fathers are not involved. 70% illegitimacy rate. Abortion rates that would be considered genocide in any other country.
Ever since LBJ's "Great Society" snow job, Black men have been pushed out. A woman could get free housing and food stamps as long as there was no husband in the picture. This was followed by generational poverty and dependence.
Obama's answer? Raise taxes on those that are the most productive to 55% and give it to the unproductive.
Obama place class warfare and race warfare. Father warfare is just one more notch. The only war he is unwilling to fight is the war against Islamic radical whose idea of negotiating is "CONVERT OR DIE."
His rhetoric has all the code words of Marxism and fascism. "you should be allowed to drive an SUV!" So what. He has no business telling me what I should drive. That is fascism.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Very nice post fishgydude, there is really not much I can disagree with you on there. Thank you.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:17 am
re: A country where, because they’re girls, they don’t have as much opportunity as boys do?"
...besides being denied the compulsory obligation to sign up for Selective Service and possibly be shipped off to war and die, which opportunities are girls being denied? Which ones?...
June 18th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I thought I saw that he was co-sponcering a bill, res. 59, or, res. 241. This bill is for shared parenting. Am I wrong?
June 18th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Davina says "As an independent, some of his other views are already way way way too left wing for me and most other people I know who support him or are considering supporting him feel the same way ... which has led me to believe there might be other people out there who feel the same as us."
The Democrats have a long history of picking presidential candidates who are too liberal and thereby losing elections (Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern). The only two Democrats to win in recent history have been Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both southerners who represented the more conservative wing of the party.
It's possible that they may have done the same thing again with Obama. Many Democrats no doubt feel the country is heading so far in their direction that they will win anyway. Maybe. But it's a gamble.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Man, I am a supporter of Obama but, maybe not after this. McCain isn't much better. Maybe I will have to write in Dennis Kusinich's name in.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:54 am
I'm not sure who not to vote for more - this guy or McCain. If Hilary were still around things would be simpler.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:04 am
cdub said,
"The media and liberals in this counrty are desperate to see a non-white male in the white house"
Assuming you mean a non-"white male", I agree. That's why they made sure Edwards was doomed from day one. Over the last couple decades, the Democratic party has done everything in its power to alienate white men. Now that Bill C. is out of the picture, they are on the verge of complete alienation.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:17 am
1. The bill(s) Obama is talking about are S. 1626 (in the Senate) and H.R. 3395 (in the House).
2. Obama and Bayh are the only two Senators backing the bill. In the House there are only 13 members of Congress in support of the measure. It is not likely to go anywhere in the 110th Congress and will have to be reintroduced in the 111th after the new President comes on board in early 2009.
3. There are some good provisions to the bill, for example, incarcerated men would be able to petition for a reduction in child support payments.
4. I'm contacting my representatives with my analysis of the bills. I will also send letters to the cosponsors.
I've been screwed out of visitation with my kids and this is not an issue I take lightly. Obama is uneducated about this. McCain is promoting war. I think it may be easier to educate than to imagine my kids drafted.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Theres some good stuff being said here today.
Also, presidents now, are not the ones developing the paradigm we live in, It is the media that are now the paradigm architects, and we should be just as concerned who is chief CEO of Paramount pictires or the New York TImes, as we are who the next "talking head" is.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:05 am
I have sent several emails to the Obama Campaign (& the clinton & McCain ones as well) speaking about men's rights and men's issues.......
Needless to say, I have received responses from Obama and none of them referred to men's rights or issues in any way, shape, or form........
On Sunday, a woman called out of the blue asking if I would have a party for Obama supoporters......I responded that I was not sure that the candidate (Obama) was supporter a major issue that is generally ignored.........
"What issue is that?"
"Men Rights!"
Silence (I was a little surprised SHE was still on the phone).....
I explained about my problem with VAWA AND I-VAWA.......I told her that if violence was bad, then violence against men is bad, too..........
I doubt that it will do much, but we must speak up.....I encourage you folks to do the same or similar.......not just with the presidential candidates, but with all candidates.....
June 18th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Akhi,
That's sad but hilarious at the same time. It cracked me up to read about the "stunned silence". What a weird and novel idea, men need to be treated well too. Oh man, that was funny.....sad....but funny.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Akhi,
Just to add to my comment about "stunned silence". I can just imagine this lady sitting there on the phone calling you. You bring up Men's Rights. She's probably got script sheets for how to respond to any group from "Save the Alaskan Muskrat" to "Lesbians That Have Been Abducted By Aliens", but nothing for men. OMG, too funny.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:41 am
He is losing me with these ad hominem attacks. McCain is looking better all the time.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Maybe Rod Wright will run next time.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Again women, who are supposed to be every bit as equal as a man, are given a complete pass.
No remarks to women having out of wedlock children? Of course not! Women are the ones who decide when and where sex will take place. They should have an equal, if not more responsibility than men, due to biological factors.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Sadly for men, women are the most easily manipulated of voter groups.
All politicians have to do is
1. never say anything that hurts their feelings,
2. play into their need to not be responsible for anything bad that happens (i.e., blame-shift to men), while
3. convincing them that bad things are happening -- or could happen -- to them.
With this basic recipe, politicians can exploit the female gender endlessly, as is obvious in this country:
Women, while being deceived into believing that they have been exploited by men, are now being ten-times as exploited by government.
And most of them really cannot see it.
It is amazing.
The only the thing that would be better from a politician's standpoint would be if Congress could somehow make toddlers the largest voting block in America.
Lollipops for all!
Do you have Bad Parents who didn't give you your lollipop?
We the government will protect you from Lollipop-Denial Abuse at hands of your parents!
June 18th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
My 2 cents on this are simple. Both Obama and his wife are hypocrites in the worst sense of the word. They both recieved the best education the system could offer which opened doors for them that would not have not been there otherwise but yet pretend to disdain that which they are part of.
HRC continued exposure of Obamas character flams really blew away the teflon armor he was wearing early in march and I think has really exposed his lack of experience, his lack of empathy, his lack of patience and his and his wifes blatant racism.
He reminds me and others of us old enough to remember Jimmy Carters run back in 1976. Many of the terms and slogans he is using sound hauntingly familiar.
We have had enough of "entitlement" programs in this country and dont need more of the same.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I'm going into the ballet box and crossing out everyones name and replacing them with Glenn Sacks. I don't even think I'm joking. How about it Glenn? Ever thought of trying your hand at politics? You already seem to have supporters in the media. I say we all vote for Glenn, if for no other reason then to make the ballet counters say "WTH?" Honestly I haven't liked any of the people running since the begining. The older I get the more I realize they're all full of crap.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
I'm getting attacked on a local board for posting this, and saying that I want to change my vote over this and his last comments which I found offensive at the NOW conference. Pretty much this is everyone's argument excluding the personal attacks towards me.
1. I'm not a young black father, so the speech has nothing to do with me.
2. Fathers get too much praise as it is.
3. Its an important issue, so that was the perfect outlet for it.
4. His speech has good points if you listen to it....
Nobody would talk about these types of issues on mothers day or veterans day, even though there are issues that really need addressed. But its ok, on fathers day, to talk down to fathers, to the wrong crowd. I doubt highly that the church was full of young black single fathers, if it was, then maybe I would feel differently.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
IronWolve, I kinda like that Obama but that speech was nothing but pandering, pandering, pandering. He's just doing what all other politicians due and kissing up to the feminists so they don't launch a smear campaign. I made a post before saying that this is very similar to politicians and AIPAC. It's shameful. They all line up to pucker up on those metaphorical butt cheeks.
1. I'm not a young black father, so the speech has nothing to do with me.
You're an American. Obama wants to be your public servant in the highest office we have. Everything he does
has to do with you.
2. Fathers get too much praise as it is.
That's just a ridiculous lie. I could go on my hard drive or just on google and find you a thousand examples
of how, not only are fathers not getting much praise, the attitude is not even neutral. They are getting slammed
all the time.
3. Its an important issue, so that was the perfect outlet for it.
Obama's speech was an exercise in tunnel vision. He looked at one aspect of a complex problem concerning
children, familes, economics, socialization, etc.... And, he laid this undue share of the blame on dads on none
other than Father's Day......off the mark and insulting on top of it. Let me put it another way. Imagine that you are
asked to deliver a speech on Mother's Day about important female historical figures. So, you get up there and talk
about Lizzy Borden, Susan Smith, etc.... You get the picture.
4. His speech has good points if you listen to it Hey, a good point is a good point. Hell, I hate Rush Limbaugh or
Glenn Beck or Wendy Murphy. But, if they have a good point, they have a good point. However, since 99% of
what they say is rubbish and actually makes listeners dumber, I'm not going to listen to their programs and
speeches to find the rare instance of honesty and lucidity..
June 19th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Look folks,
Consider his audience. South side Chicago. You really think that there are more good dads there than bad ones?? Trust me, he spoke on the right topic. Extolling men to man up and be there for their kids.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I had made a Youtube video to respond to Obama's "Podcast On Fatherhood" vid. So, when they posted his new F.D. speech, mine appeared automatically in the "Related Videos" panel. In three days, I've had about 1500 new hits. My video is titled "Barack Obama Fathers Day reply - INVOLUNTARY Fatherlessness"
I think it's important to put a short, descriptive label on our cause. Something that can be typed in a Google window. "Equal Protection of Fundamental Parental Rights" is a little big. So I've been using "Involuntary Fatherlessness" and "Involuntarly Absent Parent" to underscore our point that many absent dads did NOT CHOOSE to walk away.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Go to www.ustream.tv - (search) michael the black man show And www.youtube.com (search) michael calls the democrats the kkk.
learn why Obama is bad for our country and the world.
note:I am a 65 year old so-called black man (retired educator) from the U.S.A. and I am so happy to know this truth because it has made me free(St. John 8:32).Please pass this information on to others.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:38 am
We can all thank the Democrats (Bill Clinton) for VAWA, which he authorized in 1997 and reauthorized ion 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act
Obama also talks a lot about furthering rights for women to make sure his little girls have every opportunity when they grow up. WHAT? Our government already provides females many more opportunities AND privileges gratis of the ignorant tax-payers.
Of course he'll cater to the feminists--- he's a democrat.
Men, you're sunk with either party because they both cater to females, because they know there are more female voters.
Republican president-- they'll kill off most males with war.
Democratic president--They'll torture and destroy males here on home soil.
JOIN THE LIBERTARIAN Party! They believe in the Constitution and Constitutional rights for all, and in getting rid of at least half of the worthless government parasites in Washington.
The two main parties sterayed far from the Constitution a long time ago.
October 21st, 2008 at 6:53 am
More of the same old rhetoric -- bash a man, get elected. So much for Hope & Change.
It has always astounded me how politicians and the MSM act shocked and horrified at a "vile man" who has 17 children from 17 different women.
It seems to me that the media and the policy-makers are focusing their attention and disdain on the wrong segment of society. In the scenario above, we have have one (1)irresponsible man and 17 irresponsible women.
Women's promiscuity needs to be acknowledged and addressed not rewarded and swept under the carpet by vilifying such a fractionally insignificant part of the problem merely because there are more female voters than male voters.