
(Please welcome Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton who joins us today to talk about equal pay issues and the Paycheck Fairness Act. She will be chatting with us in the comments for the next half hour — jh)
If men in this country were paid just 77 cents for every dollar that women were paid for the same work, what do you think would happen?
Mass protests? Editorial outrage? Immediate Congressional action?
I think all of the above. And more.
But women have been paid less than men for decades, and we are still fighting for this fundamental inequity to be remedied.
Equal Pay Day is the day we recognize that we have a long way to go before women's pay catches up with men. It's a powerful reminder that even though we've made a lot of progress toward equality, there is so much work left to do.
I introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act in Congress to help close the pay gap. It would toughen the penalties for violating the Equal Pay Act, to stop discrimination in the workplace. It makes sure the government enforces equal pay in its contracts, so that we're leading by example. It prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who share information about their salaries. Did you know you can be fired for talking to your fellow employees just to find out if you're being treated fairly?
The Paycheck Fairness Act would require the Department of Labor to keep collecting and publishing information about women workers — information the Bush administration has stopped collecting. One more step they've taken toward making Washington an evidence-free zone!
This bill is an important step forward for women and our families. I couldn't even get a hearing on it in the Republican controlled Congress, but this month the Senate HELP committee had our first hearing on the wage gap and began considering legislative action.
Just as we're working on equal pay in the workplace, we have to keep working for equal respect for women in every aspect of life. Last Friday, I visited Rutgers University to celebrate the anniversary of the Eagleton Institute and the Center for American Women and Politics. I had the chance to meet with C. Vivian Stringer, the coach of the women's basketball team, and talk to her about the grace and dignity shown by her team after they were the subject of public insults. I told Coach Stringer that we received tens of thousands of messages of support for the team that we will be delivering to them.
Those young women inspired our respect and started a conversation I hope will continue. When I spoke to the young people of Rutgers after meeting with the coach, I urged them to follow the team's example, to take what I called the "Rutgers pledge" — to stand up to discriminatory and degrading language and fight for the respect and equality we all deserve.
I hope you'll take a look at a video on my website with some of the highlights of the speech I gave at Rutgers, where I talk about the inspiring example set by the basketball team and what I believe it means for all of us.



202 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Welcome Senator Clinton, and thank you so much for being here today.
For commenters — as always when we have chats, please stay on topic. If you want to go off topic, feel free to do so on the previous thread.
Welcome, Senator Clinton.
Welcome to FDL, Sen. Clinton. This is an issue near and dear for me — I tried to persuade my Smith College class to tape 77 cents on our graduation caps my senior year in 1991. We have yet to make enough progress to revise that number. How frustrating.
Welcome Mrs. Senator! I am 15 and involved in politics and plan to run for President in 2032 when I am old enough. But until then I want to be able to make the right amount of money for any job I am doing and not just the “girl” amount of money.
—Cassie
Thank you for being here, Senator Clinton, it’s an honor.
Welcome, Senator Clinton.
Thanks, Senator, for bringing renewed focus to this continuing source of discrimination and inequality. Welcome to our little community as well!
Senator Clinton, why do you think we are still fighting for this? Equal Pay for Equal Work – I remember that slogan from back in the 70’s.
Do you think that women’s issues in general just do not matter to the men in government and on the Supreme Court.
What is your plan to protect women from our government?
Welcome! I’m wondering about a recent article that partially attributed the pay gap to different career choices (the fact that less women go into fields like engineering or science that are higher-paying). Do you feel there is anything that can be done on a national level to address this by encouraging women into these fields?
Good afternoon Senator!
I must admit that I escaped the equal pay problem by starting my own company–I’m in charge of the paychecks now. But, I fully support this effort of yours.
Also, I respectfully request that you consider supporting a date-certain timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. A military solution is no longer possible. We must focus our efforts on a political one. Thank you.
Just read the news re Jessica Lynch, the Chaney response to Reid and another article on Crow’s episode with Rowe. All some what off topic except to ask if you think people are beginning to see through Bush and his administration and some progress on ANYTHING is possible.
My family wishes you well.
Thank you also for letting us know that the Bush administration has stopped collecting and publishing information on women workers. They are indeed trying to create an evidence free zone.
I wanted to know if there are other ways they have helped to make the wage gap even bigger that we might not be aware of?
Garbo @ 9
Do women get paid the same amount if they are in the same career?
Welcome Senator Clinton. Thank you for taking the time to be with us here today.
Welcome, Senator Clinton. It’s an honor.
I would love to see the media accord women candidates the same respect they offer men. One small but important example: Pundits prattle on about female candidates’ pantsuits and voice control; then in the next breath, you hear them debate bigger issues, with respect to those candidates’ male counterparts. How can we elevate the conversation?
Senator, how do you think coverage of your candidacy has been influenced by the same forces that sustain unequal pay throughout society?
Welcome, Senator Clinton. Thanks for taking the time to join the blogosphere.
It’s astonishing that the Bush team has stopped logging statistics on women’s pay vs men’s. Thank you for your resolve to make the issue a top priority for the Senate. Now that you have more allies, it there’s a fair chance that something meaningful will get done.
We’re having some login bumps, Senator Clinton will be with us shortly.
Welcome Senator Clinton. What is the problem with the media (Sunday Talk shows) always talking about whether you are “warm and fuzzy”
Chris Matthews has an addiction to this topic.
What is the problem with a strong, serious and intelligent woman running for President! What do you think about this ?
Welcome, Senator. I’ve no particular question for you, but am happy you dropped by. Probably not the best day to get deeply into the equal pay issue, as people here are mostly riled up right now about the Tilman coverup, and the impending one over at Office of Special Counsel. We are counting on you to help make things right in our government.
How about bringing back the ERA? With the information on women getting paid 77 cents on the dollar vs what men make AND the news that the disparity begins within the first year out of college AND the recent SCOTUS decision, it seems like the ground might be fertile for such an act.
SnarKassandra @
13
Not always. I worked at a place that had a lower starting rate for women than men. And an even lower rate for African-American women. This wasn’t in the 1950s. This was about three years ago. I don’t work there anymore.
Senator, thank you for your work in the Senate and for bringing attention to unequal pay and other employment discrimination issues.
Are you limiting questions to this topic? Because many on this site are concerned about the recent Supreme Court abortion decision and what it says about the majority’s view of women’s rights and so are naturally curious about your views on the decision and the criteria for selecting and confirming federal judges.
Senator Clinton when you presented your plan for Health care changes in the 90’s I predicted that you would get hammered. You were hammered.
What would your plan be for National Health Care at this point in time?
scarecrow at 24 — We’re trying to stay on topic as much as possible because Sen. Clinton has a limited time to chat with everyone today. (Hopefully we’ll get the comment glitch ironed out shortly.) Thanks!
Suzanne @ 8
We need more women to join our government and make the laws and policies that affect us.
Thank you for joining us today.
Do you think there is any truth to the notion that by keeping a woman’s paycheck lower than a man’s, that She might stay home and play the good little wifey?
Except, now when some of us are at home, we are on the internet educating ourselves on a variety of subjects and staying current on extremely important issues and sharing our thoughts and concerns with like-minded souls.
Thank you, keep the faith.
Yuck! Why don’t they talk about that more on the news? Isn’t it illegal? Can a lady sue them?
sorry I went off topic
Welcome Senator I agree with what you say now then how do you plan to get this past a GOP filibuster? Might I suggest freezing payment on all military contractors accused of fraud? Or a bill forcing congress, government employees and their relatives to give back ANY profits they got from a company found guilty of War Profitteering. Also please force G.W Bush to pay for at least half the current cost of this war during his term. It would be unfair if during your presidency the Republicans tore you down because you had to raise takes to pay for G.W Bush’s war.
Garbo @ 9
As we discussed at a recent Senate HELP hearing, there are differences in pay that simply cannot be explained in any way than discrimination. I hope you’ll look at the record of that hearing.
I have asked the National Academy of Sciences to look into the relatively low number of women in these fields. But that does not excuse the wage gap.
Greetings Senator Clinton:
Allow me to put on my right-wing radio host beanie. (I’ve tangled with them recently and know how they think.)
First they will call this some sort of quota system that will hurt small businesses.
Then they will rant about government telling them how to run their business when government can’t even run itself.
Finally they will play “the mommy card”. The “Left Hates Mothers” they will cry. This bill will force mothers back into the workforce sooner to justify their higher salaries. They reason that women get paid less because they are often out of the work force and don’t have the seniority of men, so the therefore 77 cent statistics are skewed and are suspect.
Have I about covered them all?
So can you give us a preemptive response to their standard blather on this issue?
Thank you,
LLAP,
Spocko
Jane Hamsher @ 12
The entire economic policy of this administration is directed at widening inequality. Between the people they know – their friends – and the rest of us – the people who are invisible to them.
Senator Clinton, please repudiate your support for the Occupation of Iraq, and for Senator Joe Lieberman. It’s time for principled, courageous leadership that dares to take a stand. Thank you.
cleter @ 23
How can that be legal?
South Orange County Democrat @ 15
You are so right. I hope the Rutgers team’s example sets off a national conversation about this, but we all have to keep it going.
Senator Clinton:
If you are elected President would you consider the possibility of
expanding the size of the Supreme Court to tip the balance away
from the right wing court we are now seeing?
Welcome Senator Clinton. Your remarks about a vast, right-wing conspiracy were sure on the money! A lot of women were dumbed down during the Equal Rights Amendment push into believing that standing up for themselves somehow lessened their femininity or desirability. There are still millions of women who are satisfied with whatever they are paid, because they believe the man should be the breadwinner, and making less money than their husbands maintains the illusion of masculinity. I hope that the cleansing sunlight of oversight will truly expose the extent of the control and manipulation of the masses that has contributed to keeping many women “in their place” by making them believe they have to “measure” the illusion of achievement, in order to not offend their very own communities. Now, I’ve used the word “illusion” twice, because many women have bought into just that. The time is ripe for change. I appreciate your hard work and courage!
Thanks for coming, Senator.
Do you think Attorney General Gonzales should be impeached or resign?
Your proposal seems excellent, but won’t it require administrative honesty and competence at the tops of cabinet departments like Justice and Labor? How can we enforce good rules without good rule enforcers?
Thank you.
Folks — off topic comments are going to start being removed if you can’t stay on topic. Sen. Clinton has limited discussion time today, and we are really trying to stick to the topic at hand. Off topic posts should be taken to the prior thread. Hopefully we can have her back another day to talk about other issues. Thanks much!
Hillary Clinton @
27
That would be a wonderful thing. Are there any programs within the Democratic Party that are/should be encouraging this? One of the things we’ve been concerned with on this blog is the fact that single, unmarried women — who largely vote Democratic when they do vote — are just not engaged in the political process. They’re not even registered to vote, and in the last election twenty million of them didn’t. Those numbers could have swung the election. I appreciate that with this bill you’re trying address issues that are of concern to women, because I believe it is a serious problem when they just do not believe that politics and politicians address things that are important to them.
scarecrow @ 24
That decision in which a majority of the court held that women’s health need no longer be a consideration was a serious setback for our constitutional rights and for women’s health. I warned when I voted against Justices Roberts and Alito that Roe was in danger. I believe that respect for constitutional landmarks like Brown v Board and Roe must be considered in any Supreme Court confirmation.
Sam @ 40
FDR thought of doing that, but things worked out ok for him without it.
Is it as simple as legislating equal pay for equal work? How do you address the hidden inequalities, the things that only HR departments know about?
Sen. Clinton, thank you for visiting here.
The Bush administration has clearly installed ideologues in every level of every facet of the government over the past seven years. From the people who preside over Civil Rights enforcement all the way to the people who select the pamphlets handed out at the Grand Canyon.
Do you think the Democratic Party has the fortitude to restore the government — from top to bottom — to the one we all deserve? If not, what needs to be done (other than winning elections)?
Senator Clinton,
What do you know about how women are represented in the highest ranks of our military. We sure don’t see many women!
Rank = Money.
cleter @ 42
I have called for Attorney General Gonzales to resign more than a month ago, and posted a petition on my website.
You’re absolutely right that our nation deserves able, competent appointees and a president who takes governing seriously.
Zee @ 47
Like what kinds of things?
SnarKassandra @ 53
Pay disparaties, promotions based on gender alone, etc.
Welcome Senator Clinton. I am a constituent.
Why do you think so little progress has been made in women’s pay equality after all these years? I worked on Wall St. for 30 years, and the pay discrimination situation was pretty discouraging.
Wellesley ‘66
Senator Clinton –
Welcome, and thanks for being here.
There has been much discussion in these parts, especially after the Supreme Court decision on abortion, about how to awaken the 18-35 year old female demographic.
My hunch is that some people tend to look at the pay issue as an individual one – if they’re getting paid fairly, then they’re not convinced of the accuracy of the overall data. Do you think this is an issue that can energize the 18-35 women’s vote? Or, put differently, is there a way to make it part of an array of issues that would do that?
Hillary Clinton @ 44
Thank you for that, Senator Clinton.
I debated Ed Kilgore yesterday on Warren Olney’s show, and he said that he thought this decision was only important to pro-choice activists. As a blog run by women with a large female readership (as well as a lot of men who believe women’s issues affect us all), you can imagine that our perspective is somewhat different.
DB @ 49
I have great confidence that the Democratic Party is ready to take our country back. I meet and talk with Democrats and Independents every day who know we have to change the direction of this country.
Sen. Clinton, I know you have worked for years with the Childrens’ Defense Fund on behalf of at risk kids and childrens’ rights. A lot of the same issues that are in play for these kids are also at issue for women and pay disparity issues. One of the big questions facing all working women with kids — but especially those on the lower end of the economic scale is finding adequate, safe and affordable childcare. What ought we be doing to address this issue to help families?
Sen. Clinton:
Compliments to you for your efforts on this vital issue. My late mother worked hard all of her life, very hard. For little pay by comparision to what the men received for doing the same work. She would applaud you for your work in this area.
Thanks so much for all the great comments and questions. I hope we can do this again soon. And don’t forget to go to my website, HillaryClinton.com, and check out the equal pay calculator to see what the wage gap is costing you.
SnarKassandra @ 53
Like the fact that those of us in what are now called ‘administrative’ (read: clerical) positions will have a difficult time getting better pay. Here in the Federal government they give the guys a fancier title (Office Automation Assistant) and even though the duties are similar, the men get higher pay.
Senator Clinton, What kind of jobs are you looking at? I am 1 of 8 different people doing primarily the same job within the Corporate Cubicle Asylum. We all are paid differently. How do you think it would be possible to legislate some form of balancing?
Hillary Clinton @ 57
Thank you for being here today. We appreciate you taking the time to stop by.
Senator Clinton. It’s an honor.
As is often the case these days I’m appalled to hear that the administration has stopped collecting basic statistical information on yet another area of concern to American workers.
Equal pay for equal work is, of course, desirable and necessary, but it also connected to another issue:– the unrelenting upward creep of the number of hours Americans have to work to make ends meet. The average work week has now, I believe, increased to 44 or 45 hours, with ever-increasing numbers of people having to work at multiple jobs. Understanding that Congress has already moved to increase the minimum wage, what other measures are necessary to address this issue?
Thank you for showing up here and spending some time with us. Here’s my question, and I hope you don’t mind if it’s a bit frank. If you couldn’t even get a hearing or creatively work to generate attention for this legislation in the last Congress, why should we trust you to be able to pass this legislation?
Thank you Senator Clinton. This comment of yours made me feel better!
“I have great confidence that the Democratic Party is ready to take our country back. I meet and talk with Democrats and Independents every day who know we have to change the direction of this country.”
Hmm. It sounds like “The Senator has left the building.”
Thanks for setting this up Jane and FDL!
LLAP,
Spocko
Thank you for stopping by, Senator Clinton. Please visit again when you have more time.
spocko @ 68
Maybe she need to go hear what Kucinich is going to say! She only had 1/2 an hour. This was good!
Senator, it is a real honor to have you here at firedoglake, especially since this is a women-owned enterprise featuring strong women’s voices.
Congress has, in the past, exempted itself from many regulations it promulgates. Would you urge your colleagues on Capitol Hill to publish aggregate numbers about women’s paycheck equity among Hill staffers?
Thank you for your leadership and your service to the United States of America. I am following your campaign closely and look forward to a vigorous debate on Thursday.
I mean no disrespect when I said this, Senator Clinton; quite the opposite. I feel passionate about this topic, and though it may not be something you’d want to tackle head-on, I believe we should consider how we might elevate the discussion, out of respect for women candidates AND all the men and women who vote for them.
“…I for one don’t think the Rutgers example is enough to change things. Perhaps we’d benefit from an organized push-back.”
Wow, that was great!
Who knew? I don’t remember seeing any warning this discussion was coming. Thank goodness I plopped in at just the right time.
Senator: Thanks for the visit
Jane: Well done, you rock :-)
Senator Clinton, Jane and Christy,
This was such a welcome surprise. I hope you do it again on other issues. It’s a great way for the candidates to make our acquaintance and strengthen our working relationship with them.
Jeralyn
Thank you Senator Clinton for this surprising visit!!! As a New Yorker, I am very happy to have you has my Senator, with one exception, which is that I wish you would take a firmer stand against the disastrous war in Iraq.
It is clear that we were not simply “misled” into that war–rather we were lied to repeatedly about almost everything(as the Lynch/Tillman hearings in the House today demonstrated.
However–I am extremely happy to see you standing up for this important issue of full equality for woman. As a woman who raised a daughter in the 80s and 90s without a partner or child support and on sub-standard wages, it is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. Not only for me, but for my daughter.
“Evidence-free zone”. I love it. So true!
How about having Gore here? And the rest of the Demo candidates.
Hey, Jane, can you get Gore to show up?
I don’t mean to seem greedy.
Todd at 69 — It was a last minute availability, so we didn’t have time to announce it. Jane has been working very hard, along with Howie, to get all of the Democratic Presidential candidates by for a chat here at some point, where and when we can. Sen. Dodd had a great two-day chat, and Sen. Clinton had a short opening today. Hopefully we’ll have more of these in the days to come with lots more folks.
Welcome to the Lake, Senator Clinton!
Thank you for blogging with us.
Do you envision ‘Blogging Town Hall Meetings’ in the upcoming Presidential Campaign, and, if so, would you consider having Firedoglake host one of yours (should you decide to run for President)?
Thanks!
Lakers were very respectful.
Nice to see.
Jane and Christy–great job.
Jane and Christy–I have no idea how you pulled this off but my hat is off you both of you–and to Hilary too for having the fortitude to be here!
Welcome Senator Clinton. While I don’t have a question, I would like to urge you in the coming campaign to go with your gut instead of your focus groups. We need leadership in this country, not hand-holding. While I might not agree with everything John Murtha or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Jim Webb has to say, at least they have the guts to stand up for what they believe. I will bolt at the first sound of equivocation. Please don’t brush off the progressive agenda, but it you don’t agree with us — say so. And give us your reasons. I am currently undecided (and will need some convincing by ALL of the candidates), but let me assure you if you are the nominee, then you will have my support.
So, are we allowed to talk freely now….or is this still limited to the women’s pay stuff?
Ghostman
Senator Clinton is very on message.
I don’t think of a blog as a place to focus on just one subject — I can understand a candidate insisting on this as a requirement for appearing, but, on the other hand, it just doesn’t seem bloggish.
The appeal of a blog’s comments section is the wide net that allows much and restricts little.
I’m trying to think if the Senator said anything I didn’t already know and I can’t come up with anything.
Way to represent, ‘pups. (And a special shoutout to OKK.)
Thanks, Jane! I just logged on during a free moment at a client’s — what a kewl surprise to see HRC’s name on the “masthead.”
Ghostman @ 80
Let’s keep it on topic, I’ll have another post up soon.
Ok. That’s fair.
Ghostman
What do you think of the op-ed in The Financial Times on April 18th suggesting that women’s and men’s salaries be taxed at different levels until the wage gap disappears?
FT: Why Women Should Pay Less Tax
Slothrop @ 81
She did not insist on it as a requirement for appearing, that is what we do when we have guests. Please see Tom Matzzie’s discussion this morning, we gave the same instructions. Likewise book salon.
Thanks, Jane, for putting this together. Thank you.
So…how illegal is it to pay men and women different rates for the same job? I worked at a place that did that.
I would like to add just one other thing (and being a lurker, I feel a bit guilty) but people really do need to stay on topic when the high profile people come on. It seems easy when the lower tier is here, but if the biggies come by, it seems even more important to keep the conversation to the stated topic. Especially if they’re only going to drop by for about 15 – 20 minutes.
Just saying.
(Yeah, I’m a virgo)
Ghostman @ 85
Always great to have you here, Ghostman.
Slothrop at 81 — Staying on topic is pretty much how we do every chat with any guest — because they prepare to discuss the topic of the post, and not every topic known to mankind. (See my Matzzie post from earlier today as an example.) And, unfortunately, this chat came with a very limited time availability today. But we promise to work on many more of these sorts of discussions on as many issues as we can get on the table in the days and weeks to come. We’re working, though, with people who have packed schedules, so we’re trying to squeeze in a little time for our readers where we can, when we can. But, like I said earlier, we’re working on setting more of these up in the future…and we’ll certainly try to make them as open-ended as we can when we can.
Thanks Jane and Christy! OKK, I was kinda dreading what you might ask, but you done us proud!
Schooling in engineering, the sciences, and management is the key. We should have a new Title-IX-type program for women’s education in these high-paying fields, legislate pay equity, and pass ERA2.0.
Well I completely missed that one.
Darn that work thing.
NotThatMo @ 86
Brilliant! it just seems so fair. Plus it would get the men on board. Two concerns First the pregnancy gap in earning senority issue needs to be addressed. That and men have to reassured that their pay will not be dropped to match women’s.
Jane, Christy, help us out, did you get the sense that Hillary will be able to change this as President or was this just an out reach for votes?
Todd @ 90
I totally agree. It’s not only respectful to the biggies, but if we want to attract more biggies, it’s best to stay on topic.
If it’s too difficult, take your ADD medicine, or have a cup of coffee.
There are plenty of opportunities on this site to discuss all of the other topics we care about. And to share recipies, dog stories, etc.
Thanks to Jane and Christy. I agree with the above “YOU CHICKS ROCK”
Congrats to FDL. Great job.
I’d like to see a study of how our economy would be affected if women didn’t work. Then it could be used as leverage for equal pay and affordable childcare. Maybe a day when all women called in sick (sick of lower pay and all the rest).
Jane and Christy, I’d be polite to almost anyone if you asked me to.
How about fair pay for everyone. NAFTA
Petrocelli at 96 — See Stoller’s comment earlier about the prior attempt to pass this legislation. I think this is more of a reach out to get some help with pressuring others in Congress to push this forward. But I could be wrong — maybe Jane has more insight on the particulars.
TeddySanFran @ 97
IIRC, medicine is fast approaching 50-50. I’ll be women docs still get paid a lot less than men docs, and have a devil of a time getting promoted, in settings where that is the way it works.
At first, I resented Senator Clinton’s visit to Rutgers. It seemed like she might be piggy-backing on the controversy. But many in the chatterati were missing a significant part of the discussion — that these players were WOMEN! as well as African-American. Their denigration was multi-threaded.
Perhaps her visit highlighted the SEXIST as well as racist nature of that old fool’s comments.
I hope my Senators are both supporting Senator Clinton’s efforts in this regard; I’ll certainly ask! As should we all.
This was a great event – sorry I missed it.
:-(
Petrocelli @
98
I do not know. I think Matt Stoller’s question was a fair one, and it would be great if Senator Clinton would come back and answer it.
Kucinich on Situation Room – CNN
Call for Impeachment
Sorry, for the OT, thought you’d want to know.
My Senator won’t even support minimum wage(free market argument of course). Can’t wait to get rid of Sununu, to bad we have to wait 4 years (or is it 6) on Gregg.
GSD will tell you.
i hope the senator comes back to read some of our stuff here at the lake. maybe she will see that we are not the enemy, but we do hold our leaders accountable.
thanks jane christy and howie for puttng this together
scary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5303590.stm
(article from last year on shrub’s contributions to American worker welfare as measured in terms of real wages).
Less for more. The less-than-zero president.
This response from the Senator did give me a chuckle, though:
Somehow, I do not think the Clinton family is among the people invisible to this Administration. But I take her point neverthelss. *g*
Loo Hoo @ 94
I think the poor Kiddo must have damn near bit his tongue off! Good job, Kiddo!
And good job, Jane and Christy! That’s what I like about the lake, you never know exactly what’s next!
Thanks FDLers for bringing Hillary to your lake!
MayDaze @ 118
Yeah it was pretty cool even if she didn’t reply to everyone’s questions.
I would like her to spend an afternoon here, she or any candidate could make a more lasting connection with her potential voters that way.
twenty-five years ago, I worked in a large university and was one of a team of researchers who did an equal pay for equal work massive study. The disparity then was 70 cents on the dollar, and it is still the same, and I am retired and no longer do research, but this surprises me that there seems to have been no progress at all. Sigh
Christy Hardin Smith @
104
Thanks Christy. I really liked most of this comment, “The entire economic policy of this administration is directed at widening inequality. Between the people they know – their friends – and the rest of us – the people who are invisible to them.“
But it is a stretch to put herself in the same boat as ” … the rest of us – the people who are invisible to them”. I know all politicians do it, but Hillary already comes off as wooden and insincere, her talking points should show her as a fighter against injustice.
FDL and its pups are too intelligent to swallow the “I’m just like one of you” BS.
I am well aware that a lot of FDLers are not enthusiastic supporters of Sen. Clinton. The fact is, however, she is in many people’s eyes at this point, the odds on favorite to be the next President of the United States. She is by any account an enormously powerful person. The fact that she would visit FDL is in my opinion a terrific acknowledgment of what Jane, Christy, and this entire community have built.
sofistic @ 123
Ding. Ding. Ding.
I had a boss once (Wall St.) who proudly told me that when he had been head of the Japanese office, he had hired women from top Japanese business schools because the men were picked off by Japanese financial firms & the women were cheaper. Yes, of course, said I. And if everyone did the same thing, the compensation differential would gradually disappear. The fact that hasn’t happened is strong evidence that discrimination exists.
He looked a little stunned.
Thank You Jane, Christy, Senator Clinton this talk brought up something that wasn’t on my radar. With all this end the war, Bush must go talk I really haven’t been thinking about what I really wanted the government to do assuming we do get the White House. Focusing on the small issues reminds me of why I wanted to be a lefty in the first place!
eCAHNomics @ 105
eCAHN, IIRC, part of the problem for MDs is the continuing (tho improving trend) for women to concentrate in lower-paying specialties: ObGyn, Peds, Fam Practice. Here, too, related to predictable scheduling for family needs. (Vs surg, neuro, etc.)
If anyone has updates on this, it would be interesting. But even the docs seem to have their own “pink ghetto.”
Petrocelli @
120
I disagree that’s the point of her comments. Shrub has intentionally crafted policies designed to benefit his cronies at the expense of the rest of the country. Unless we’re arguing that the senator is one of these cronies, then she is with “the rest of us” no matter which way her personal compensation has gone. This isn’t about her… it’s about this administration’s craven idiocy.
I’m sick of having politicians that make me “identify” with them at a personal level while they stab me (and the rest of this country) in the back. Shrub was all about being an everyman.. that was his whole schtick. I want a president who delivers results on the issues I care about, not one with whom I can identify.
I think a candidate would need to do a drive by on a thread. The longer they stay the more wild the thread would get. But maybe a few hours with 30 minutes on each thread. Or 15 minutes of open thread and 15 minutes of the site leaders questions (I hesitate to re-create a pundit class, but in an hour there would be 100’s of posts and only a handful of replies).
Thanks for keeping it open and making it work.
ATTN: Cassie:-
You asked some great questions Cassie, and are a strong, young voice that Hillary’s campaign would do well to pay attention to.
Thanks Senator Clinton!
ps I sure like that picture of you.
I agree was not on my radar either. I appreciate that it is on Senator Clintons!
Nola Sue @ 128
The pattern is that any field women go into becomes a pink ghetto because women are discriminated against. That was the point I was trying to make with the dr. example. The rationalizations come after the fact.
TeddySanFran @ 96
As a scientist/technologist I can tell you that the people who make the real money are the ones who are in charge of, wait for it, the money :-) Oh, and the lawyers.
sofistic @ 119
seven-tenths of a person, we are
Kucinich would be a great guest! McCain too!
Now that I dragged my jaw up off the floor and read the post and comments, I just want to say that I am so proud of FDL and the real acomplishment of having a Presidential canidate make a post here.
Pay inequity in the 21st century just stinks. My profession which is majority female (registered nurse) does not discriminate that I know of in the pay scale based on sex.
In case the Senator or her staff come back to read the comments, I would like to thank her for putting the spotlight on this issue.
Ps. Special thanks to Jane and Christy. I hope you are doing well Jane.
Elliott @ 137
About the same as a slave when the country was formed.
“like the rest of us”
You know, I think that she is. The Clintons have become huge, but only in their adulthoods. That’s something very American. Like the Edwards. They’ve achieved. Like we all want for ourselves or our families. It’s NOT something I could take from the Bushes or even the Kennedy’s frankly. They are families of privelage. Nothing wrong with that in my book, but still there is a lack of the “Grand American Story” about it.
So, when she or any of our candidates says “like the rest of us” I beleve them.
Am I naive, maybe, but I don’t think so.
Zee @ 47
SnarKassandra @ 53
Brisingamen @ 58
Another thing is ‘tracking’, just like they do in schools — if you fit the pattern you get tracked for advancement. If you don’t look like ‘management material’ you just work your guts out and other people will ride to their promotions on your work forever. To many people, women don’t look managerial.
In small places I’ve seen women classed as ‘management’ when they were actually clerical, the reason was so they could call their pay a salary and not have to pay them for any overtime. Cute, eh? Here in Canada we have equal pay for work of equal value legislation, we can complain about sex-based variances in compensation of all sorts.
One question I do not see addressed, and whcih I think is probably important to the discussion, is not just the male-female gap for employment income but the gap for wealth. Anybody have stats on that?
eCAHNomics @ 137
Maybe about the same as 70 slaves!
I’m a great admirer of Senator Clinton.
(Surprise: Jack Cafferty just reported that Hillary is a divisive person. I suspect Jack is on the opposite divide from me.)
Clinton’s detractors don’t want to hear it, but I insist much of the venom has to do with her being a woman.
Petrocelli @
120
I would argue that describing Senatory Clinton as “wooden and insincere” buys into a right wing frame that is quite unfair. See: Matthews, Chris.
New thread.
FYI, new thread
Speaking as not a Clinton fan, I’m actually kind of impressed by her responses. She was direct and concise. More, please!
As I understand it, the pay inequality issue is less one of pay discrimination at comparable jobs but rather job discrimination in respect of higher paying jobs. Both are issues, but the bigger one is that, in many sectors, higher paying jobs go to male applicants at a higher rate than female applicants. In some fields, women are perceived to have higher attrition potential, and therefore are regarded as less deserving of investments in training, etc. Also, America’s general lack of flexibility in work hours/workweek means that women caring for children (women are still caregivers in greater numbers than men are) suffer more than men, adding to the aforementioned attrition risk issue and resulting in lower wages for women overall.
Aye, sad but true.
Now is the time to come to the aid of the party.
Well, that slave comparison doesn’t really work, unless some of you are being subjected to random beatings and/or rapes and/or any number of other unsavory treatment on the job, and off, including having your children sold without your say so, above and beyond your salary disproportionality. (But perhaps it’s my Irish ancestor indentured servitude genes cropping up here…or my American Studies major rearing its head again.)
John Casper @ 121
Yes, John, I guess I agree. But I found it discouraging that the questions here turned into the softballs we rip on the Press Pool for asking. This lady is a (=~ the) front-running Dem pres candidate. If she is elected, her priorities become our priorities, whether we like them or not. I think we are within our rights to try to find out what they are in the only opportunity we have had. In this country we have a tragic and illegal war of aggression, a gutting of the apparatus of government and wholesale subversion of the voting process, the Supreme Court just ruled like the College of Cardinals and this lady thinks that getting more women into government is a plan to protect women from government. It’d be good if I changed my guys’ kitty litter, too, but first I should put out the house fire first.
Petrocelli says:
April 24th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Christy Hardin Smith @
104
Petrocelli at 96 — See Stoller’s comment earlier about the prior attempt to pass this legislation. I think this is more of a reach out to get some help with pressuring others in Congress to push this forward. But I could be wrong — maybe Jane has more insight on the particulars.
Thanks Christy. I really liked most of this comment, “The entire economic policy of this administration is directed at widening inequality. Between the people they know – their friends – and the rest of us – the people who are invisible to them.”
But it is a stretch to put herself in the same boat as ” … the rest of us – the people who are invisible to them”. I know all politicians do it, but Hillary already comes off as wooden and insincere, her talking points should show her as a fighter against injustice.
FDL and its pups are too intelligent to swallow the “I’m just like one of you” BS.
i agree … and bill does a much better job of positioning himself as a rich guy who still knows the difference between right and wrong … i remember when he was speaking about the bush tax cut and he said that he doesn’t need it; people in his income bracket don’t
Oh for god’s sake. Of all the important issues facing me at this moment, pay is not my top priority.
Mrs.Clinton, how ’bout you come to talk to us (when you’re not to busy of course) about something that is more immediately important, like say,the devastating blow that has just been dealt to a woman’s right to choose, or the fact that our democracy is going down the tubes.
What’s up Mrs. Clinton, are you trying to manipulate us by coming here? Honey, you won’t get my vote by just showing up to answer a few questions about pay. Try harder. Think outside the box Hillary.
NotThatMo @
87
They’ll use that as an excuse to pay less to women.
HotFlash @
147
Oh no, we can’t be shrill, or ask off-topic questions. We’re having a conversation with Hillary Clinton. Delete those offending comments before she must hide her eyes from the dirty fucking hippies. If we aren’t gracious, these big name candidates might not come back.
The issue of equal pay for women is very important (child care, also)but we have gotten so far behind the eight ball on this issue because of the successes of the VRWC juggernaut. It has had a domino effect. Where we are now (on so-called womens’ issues) relates to support for Bush’s war, support for Lieberman (and the converse – lack of viable support for Lamont, not Hillary so much but Big Dog), the NARAL issue re: Lieberman and Supreme Ct nominees, appointments, cloture, etc. It relates to how we got here and how we have been unable to improve conditions for working women.
I do not discount the fact that FDL got the big guns here and that is wonderful! Thanks for that. I concur with what John Casper said.
wtf @
148
Bill also comes off as warm and sincere, which Hillary does not, I should have drawn that comparison in my earlier point.
Petrocelli @ 130
Thanks!
hey, i’m late to the party, but in my defense, this is the first i heard this party was going on.
i usually check fdl at least once a day but this one got right past me, and i’m sure that my readers would have enjoyed the opportunity to talk type w/sen. clinton.
am i just dense or did this spring up suddenly? any chance next time the fdl’ers could email an announcment before something this big shows up on this site?
and if a mass emailing is too much to ask, just email me, ok? in fact, what do i care if you tell anyone else? just slip me a heads up.
hackworth @
150
If you can draw those connections those questions are certainly “on topic” in my book. Nobody asked that Senator Clinton be thrown softballs, just that she be addressed on a topic she came prepared to speak on.
skippy @ 153
It was last minute, but we probably do need to start some sort of email list for stuff like this. You’re right, Skippy. Thanks for the suggestion.
oh ps, major kudos on a major coup getting sen. clinton here, kids! good on ya!
(tho i’m inclined to agree w/the point about softball questions {hotflash@147}…still, it was a great job!)
Over Twenty years ago, sone of my male bosses told me to my face that they would need to pay the male candidate for an equivalent job of mine that they would have to start that man out at 3K more a year than they started me out at. Having grown up with 4 brothers and being used to having to fight for my place in line, I asked at the time, “Why?” And their answer was that eventually that this “man” who was barely older than I was at the time, would have to support a family in the future.
My response was, “Cool. You mean, that if went out and got myself pregnant and did not get married, that I could get a raise?” They had no answer to that, but they did hire the man at the higher salary, anyway.
In all this time, I have been waiting for women to achieve some sort of pay equality and at times I think we have gotten closer, but recently, I think we are moving backwards doubletime… and the sexism in this country just doesn’t seem to go away.
Senator Clinton,
I’m not one or you bigger supporters but I give you full marks for being willing to post and talk here today. Please continue to interact with the “blogosphere”. I think it can only be helpful for everyone (well maybe not the R’s). FWIW this issue is not one on which I disagree.
Sorry to have missed this. I am supportive of Senator Clinton.
Aeolus at 151 — You know, you participated in the chat with Tom Matzzie earlier today, under the exact same rules that we followed with the chat with Sen. Clinton, and I didn’t see you bitching then about the rules. Food for thought — we use the same rules every single time we have someone here for a guest chat, for Blue America, for Book Salon, for any other reason.
Take a peek around the blog and see. We put up with a lot of give and take, but we do not put up with people being rude to our guests, no matter who they are — and that is enforced across the board for every guest, including the one with whom you spoke earlier.
All Right! Welcome, Senator Clinton. We have been waiting for you to join the party. Now, I can take you seriously.
It is my belief that inequalities in pay start in the classroom. A lot of people still think that girls can’t excel in certain subjects. This attitude carries over to college and graduate school. We need to encourage girls to pursue their interests and make sure they get the attention they need.
But nothing we do will have any meaning if the laws we pass are not enforced. There has to be a penalty for discrimination, so I think you’re on the right track.
Oh, I’m sorry I’m so late to this thread… it came at the end of my work day, and before the commute…
Still, in case Senator Clinton or any of her staff or aides are still reading, I would like to suggest my idea of an excellent “Plan B” for her: SCOTUS. We don’t know what will happen in the election, but having a back-up plan is always a good idea, our current WH occupant’s stubborn stand notwithstanding.
Apparently, we need another woman on the court at least as much, or possibly more than, we need one in the oval office. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has already expressed her dissatisfaction with being the only woman on the court. And the recent decisions regarding women’s medical issues only make the whole situation that much more poignant.
Given Senator Clinton’s history and experience in the Senate, I don’t think she would have much trouble getting confirmed. And… to be direct… all of those attributes for which she is criticized by so many on the left would be most appropriate on the Supreme Court: a judicious temperament, seeking consensus, etc.
Just a thought… (and it is a lifetime appointment).
Oh, and one more thing about penalties: back in my psych 101 days, I remember that in order for punishment ot be effective, it has to be something like quick, relevent and proportional in scale to the offense. Pachacutec can probably clarify.
I think the thing that is missing from much of the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws is the timeliness aspect. Too frequently, a woman who encounters discrimination faces an uphill battle in the justice system. The final settlement may be just a pyrrhic victory after years of litigation. If there was a way to settle these cases quickly with significant (but not crippling) punishment, I think most employers would take the hint.
Karen M. @ 165, nice Plan B!
The bill will be fine as it relates to employees. However, the pay gap is even wider for women with advanced degrees, many of whom are independent contractors like physicians. We need to get this message out. We work 150% for 67% of the pay and 50% of the credit ! We need to fix this for our daughters!
Christy Hardin Smith @
76
Christy (and Jane at 155), Slashdot had a process for interviews that you might be familiar with. Might be a model for future sessions. Basically a bunch of emailed questions, moderated, then answered. Would definitely cut down on the chatter and the guest would be able to get more of their own voice into the discussion. Then, maybe followups, for the next time. Great catch getting Sen. Clinton here in the first place, though. Rock on.
Sally @ 167
Thanks, Sally! I keep bringing it up whenever I get an opportunity, hoping that eventually it will break through.
I really think it’s a win/win/win. We get someone who could be really good on the court. And HRC would not have to keep campaigning, but instead could focus her full resources, which are considerable, on life and death issues that affect all of us.
Forgive me, but maybe someone can tell me exactly what was accomplished by having Hilary as a “guest?” Aside from her “star power,” and all the “attagirls” CHS and Jane got for getting her to appear, she didn’t say one thing that wasn’t part of her campaign talking points, and managed to duck answering any of the more pointed questions.
What a waste!
Martskers @
171
If you didn’t show up and ask anything to challenge that, I don’t know who you’re blaming.
Senator Clinton:
I am an old man!!! But if you comment to equal pay for equal work is accurate I am on board. Our country has given two roles that are totally beneath women: look after the kids at home and work for lower pay. I totally disagree. I want women to be paid for their work on an equal basis. For exceptionally gifted women I would love an extra pay cheque.
Got to this very late, but kudos to FDL, and I give Clinton tons of credit for doing this. As many said, it’s an honor.
I wonder if CHS or JH would start a thread to stories from Lakers about their own experience of pay inequities–that would probably serve the purpose started here.
But just having HC up and on the board seems to be extremely powerful stuff. Bringing over an issue and doing a driveby is better than nothing, but it does seem to be the tip of the iceberg of possibility. I know a more ambitious program would be a nightmare to moderate and keep in line, but my guess is that HC would be struck and strengthened by the level of discouse that FDL is capable of generating. One of the things I’ve always been impressed by with her is that she’s great at thinking on her feet and she has a very strong intellectual presence–very intimidating to some insecure repubs, etc. I know she’s trying to have a carefully controlled, succinct message right now, but it would be great to see her pull up a keyboard and give her spiel on a variety of topics. And I think it would be worth her while. Seeing how FDL and other sites have evolved in the course of days, let alone weeks and months, when you’re bright and informed and your heart’s in the right place, it’s a great tool to unleash a viral enthusiasm, energy, and effort. Let’s hope that there’s much more to come.
I imagine HRC was simply overwhelmed by the sheer volume of HI!!! There’s no way she could get to answering all the questions -or even read them in real time- given a half-hour. I’m not going to count, but there were few answers. Not her fault.
It seems inconsistent to be for equal pay, yet for Hillary to be in favor of the Visas allowing foreign workers to come into the U.S. which lowers the wages of all workers.
Does Hillary want to RAISE WOMEN’s wages, or LOWER EVERYONE’s wages?
Maybe KO will dive into this subject of unequal pay if he is on Countdown tonight.
maybe this is one of the “I can’t lose on this issue” that the Clinton campaign will come up with. But for me I still grimace when I think of this Senator’s association with George Tenet (maybe past), present association with Richard Holbrooke and her lack of vision in not raising issues that she may lose on.
Christy Hardin Smith @
93
Thanks, Christy. I love this blog and one of the reasons is the fierce, independent streak you find here. I don’t think a blog interaction with an author of a book is the same as that with an elected official.
You can’t ask for commentors to keep it on topic here and then criticize Beltway journalists for having cozy relationships with politicians.
Why should it be cozy for Senator Clinton here or in D.C.?
I thought the on- topic questions to Senator Clinton were brilliant, given the time restriction.
Hillary is a contentious candidate and has upset a lot of Bill’s supporters with her campaign style, thus far. If anyone besides Hillary is to be blamed for exposing her shortcomings, it should be Bill. Having him play a leading role in her campaign will highlight those strengths which he has in spades, and which she seems to be lacking.
I hope her handlers will use the comments on FDL to re- shape their campaign.
Slothrop @
83
Did someone schedule one of these and not let me know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
Whatever it was it was a great success Kudos to J and C.
Slothrop @
179
Asking people to stick to a particular topic is the same as having a “cozy” relationship with a politician? You’ve got to be kidding. I’ve never met Hillary Clinton, neither has Christy. The chumminess that leads to a lack of willingness to criticize is not present. I’ve criticized Senator Clinton many times and I’ve never held back because we were “pals.” I think you’re confusing exactly what “cozy” means, and what this particular critique specifically is directed at.
Jane Hamsher @
182
FWIW, I think it’s best to have a candidate on to discuss one topic at a time. It allows for a deeper discussion about the issue, helps them to understand our opinions and gives them the time to show how thoroughly versed they are in the subject.
Well, I missed it. I went to the grand opening of our new Chamber of Commerce today and just got home. Thanks for blogging here Hillary and I hope you stop by again to discuss other matters.
Ms. Clinton,
Thanks for making yourself part of the discussion, and forgive me if this has been stated already, as I’m late to the thread today.
Seventy seven cents on the dollar is indeed an immoral comparison for the same labor by any standards, even more so when you consider that women are the central family figures, as nature has so bestowed them with motherhood.
Seventy seven cents on the day is what China and developing scale economies pay their workers. Let’s level that playing field from the outset if we’re to talk of equity in any economic model.
Back to wages, a minimum wage raise would expand the tax base to an extent we could do a quite modest tax cut, provided said cut is capped past certain amounts. Every time minimum wage was raised our economy improved.
Women’s pay should reflect the same standard pay as anyone else at said job position. Perhaps allowing Unions to organize in easier ways would accomplish this. In two ways it works, because if you remove some of the present obstacles smaller unions and representative groups could emerge, and this competition would competitively pool the results of larger unions. That is what we call a free market, something big employers traditionally abhor.
Larger unions would not oppose such because expanding the collective background of skilled and organized workers increases the market for everyone. Many unions now are specializing so as to have unique categories their field of labor applies to, whilst collectively sharing larger platforms; whereby they all agree fundamental and institutional standards and benefits apply. This would not threaten their collective efforts, it parallels their future plans.
I’d suggest a small business waiver for wage improvement, to better afford family firms a chance to compete. This would not include service industry franchises, no McLoopholes should exist. Traditionally small family businesses share the risk, so they could be the ones to get the wage waiver, as by year’s end they usually share more the gains.
Thus the wage waiver would of course impose caps, and companies dealing high turnover to keep workers under said pools of pay would instead face a penalty tariff. By design you cannot retard growth of service and skill. Again such an item would better leverage scale unions and specialization of employee demands without hurting bottom line returns for quality work.
Continuing education, and accelerated online compatibility could be subsidy items to consider as part of the new model so America stays atop trends in trends in business on a short learning curve in response to new technology. That would comprise a part of tax returns and business grant bonus paid for in full by the wage increase that expands the initial tax base.
Again we look forward to hearing of your ideas.
Good luck in all things,
-Chris H.
It’s so funny I have an MBA from Ball State University in Muncie, IN….I was offered a JOB?? for 11.00 an hour ….can you believe that?? I have spent well over $60,000.00 on a education….I am 43 yrs old. Stayed home while my kids were young and now am trying to get back into the workforce…and all they want to offer me is $11.00 an hour??
It is cheaper for me to stay home once again, than to work…Where is the justice??
So much for Equal Pay for Equal Work….
I’m inspired by her courage to tackle such a controversial issue! But how does she feel about the baby seal hunt? Now THAT’s a litmus test.
Looks like I missed something.
Oh well, I see not much was really said.
It’s awfully easy to get support by preaching to the choir.
Is it really a democratic kinda thing to limit discussion to one issue? Was she REALLY only prepared to discuss ONE issue? Hmmm.
Matt Stoller @
62
Nice try.
Welcome to FDL.
Thank you Senator Clinton.
I really have to point out to you that you can pass all the legislation you want and it won’t change the dollar amount in a woman’s paycheck. It won’t change the fact that women are systematically marginalized in the workplace. It is just the way it is.
Besides, isn’t this already coverd in the Equal Rights Amendment? Its been law for so long, and still they find ways around it every single day. A new law isn’t going to change that. We’re not even enforcing the laws we have!
Thank you for your post.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is what protects pay discrimination based on gender. I was 8 years old in 1963 and it is a sad, sad day that this is still a valid topic.
Jane Hamsher @
172
I’m not “blaming” anyone; just saying that these kinds of cameo appearances are of very little use, other than enabling the candidate to hype her talking points.
And, even if I had “shown up” to ask something, given HRC’s selectivity in the questions she answered (or even acknowledged), there wouldn’t have been much point in doing so.
Honestly, I think it would be much more useful if you, Christy, Emptywheel, Swopa (and/or one or more of your other front-pagers) sat down with a candidate to ask questions you have (and maybe some that were submitted by we visitors), and then blogged that sit-down, either live or after the fact. That way, at least you’d know she had to answer your questions, rather than cherry picking them, the way HRC did during this exercise.
I just wanted to post about my wife’s problems where she works. My wife was hired to a lead stocker position at a local food coop. She moved to this position after being harassed by her supervisor at the same coop. The harassment took the form of being pulled from her work on the floor as a Manager on Duty to be repeatedly questioned by her supervisor about a burglary of the drop safe that she does not have access to or deals within the course of her work day. After being taken from her work and falling behind due to these “interviews” which were conducted even though the local police conducted investigations which did not involve my wife, she took a lead stocker position at a cut in pay with the promise that she would be brought up to her old rate of pay and given a level change at the completion of 90 days. It didn’t happen. When management was confronted with a witness by my wife, the management admitted they made the promise but were not going to fulfill it. Meanwhile, newly hired male co workers with years less experience, who she would need to supervise and direct in order to complete her duties, and had in the past, were hired with a pay raise greater than what she was hired with, and given a level equal or greater the she. Also these men were hired even though several female in-house applicants with more experience applied. The level changes of these men has resulted in my wife’s not being able to complete her job as described in the job description because these new hires refuse to be directed by her, thus increasing her work load. Meanwhile these men do little of their jobs and leave early. These men are also close personal friends of the department head, who will do little to correct this situation. Even though my wife does more work in her department, which has the highest volume in the store, her counterparts, lead stockers in the other departments, all male new hires, make more money for less work. She has gone through the grievance process, and although the results show her grievances to be valid, the facts uncontroverted, no steps are being taken to correct it. The raise and level change they admit she was promised now a year and a half ago has not been implemented at a loss to her of a few thousand dollars. She has now changed her position again for one of less responsibility in that department, in the evening, only to find that her replacement will not complete his duties (and the duties of the other slackers) leaving them to her. Any resolution sought to his situation has been ignored.
The biggest hypocrisy of this whole situation is that this is taking place in “enlightened” Ithaca New York. Seems like even the most liberal of communities are plagued by these inequities.
I didn’t know that posting the truth, the same truth spoken by:
Martskers #171
Mark H # 187
Slothrop (several times)
and Krup #194…
Was “immoderate”.
I think you guys made a mistake, believing that you could INCREASE your blogpower, or readership, or whatever, by bringing Hillary in here; having her field a few sweetheart questions, and then having her waltz out with credit for making a “tough blogsite” appearance under her belt, without (just like the repubs are trying to do these days…) ever mentioning the word “Iraq”.
These days Hillary Clinton is saying a lot of stupid, wishy-washy things. If you want to keep your reputation intact, you shouldn’t bring her on here, and then scold or delete your people who want her to answer the hard questions about the bloody shitmire she helped create, and has done so much to sustain, or, how to end. These things pertain directly to her character and her intellect. More so than the “Can’t we all just get along issues of equal pay for women, or support for the Rutger’s women’s basketball team.
Tanbark at 194 — You appear not to understand something very basic: you can ask whatever you like on topic, you can’t do it in a rude way with a guest. It’s quite simple, and a rule that we enforce across the board with any guest here. Further, we are trying to give every single Democratic candidate an opportunity to speak here — whether or not you or anyone else likes them — because at this point neither Jane nor I have made any particular decision as to who each of us will support. Frankly, it’s too early for me, no one has completely grabbed me, and I’d like to learn more about each of them before I commit. One way to do that is to speak with them — and to see how they interact with constituents — thus, the invitations to each and every Presidential candidate to discuss something here that they find important, relevent or otherwise.
We aren’t selectively going to shut out one person or another because you or anyone else doesn’t particularly like that person. And we aren’t going to tell them what they should or should not talk about — because, honestly, we learn as much about them from the way they handle this interaction as we do from the answers they give.
But we are not changing the rules for guests to suit your personal needs or anyone else’s — we have refined this chat rule structure over time as a means to have an actual conversation instead of a shouting match, and we like it that way, thanks. Next time Sen. Clinton or anyone else is here, we will use the same exact rules — but if you can ask a question politely and on topic, you are welcome to do so, difficult or not, because that is how we always have and will continue to operate.
Hillary! how cool you have posted at FDL.
i wanted to acknowledge your unprecedented contribution to bringing the possibility of universal health care front and center into the national dialogue.
And, Christy, after you deleted 4 posts by me, WITHOUT troubling yourself to explain, you FINALLY replied, after some more of the same, from some of your faithful readers on here.
All I did, and all I’m doing, is pointing out the simple truth that allowing one of the democrats most supportive of bush’s war to come on here and essentially duck that, while you scold people to “stay on topic” (or, in my case, delete them) is PRECISELY what Martskers said on #171:
“Forgive me, but maybe someone can tell me exactly what was accomplished by having Hillary as a guest. She didn’t say one thing that wasn’t part of her talking points, and she managed to duck answering any of the more important questions. What a waste.”
Let’s continue:
Mark H: “Is it really a democratic kinda thing to limit discussion to one issue? Was she really only prepared to discuss one issue?”
Slothrop:
“You can’t ask for commentators to keep it on topic here and then criticize Beltway journalists for having coy relationships with politicians.”
Krup: “Please remind me why “we” should “welcome” Hillary “If I knew then what I know now” Clinton? Sorry, but she has defaced your once spotless blog.”
That WAS #194, but it looks like you’ve deleted that, too.
And I’m telling you, Christy, this is some evil stuff to see going on here.
I’ve been on a bluegrass blog (my favorite music) fighting the good fight, practically alone, early on, for 4 1/2 years. At times, it was vicous and more rank than anything that’s gone on here. But I’ve never gotten banned, not once.
Let’s just flip this around, and if you get Edwards, or Barak, of Kucinich, on here, and they want to talk about their “economic policies”, will you be as eager to give them a free ride on Iraq and what we have to do there, as you were with Hillary?
Here’s what I think: I think that you guys were so eager to have a big name post here, that you cut a deal with Hillary, to damp down any questions about her position on Iraq.
If there was NO discussion of anything like that, here’s your chance to say it.
Of course, then you just did it off the top of your head, and we can leave it to your readers to decide which is worse.
You site is getting popular. You’ve done some fine work, for all of us, but you’ve got that decision to make, like a bluegrass band that’s getting popular: do you water down your “music”, to broaden your fan base (and pick up advertisers) or have you got the spittle to keep on speaking the truth and asking the tough questions, and let the chips fall?
A lot of us will be interested in your answer.
Tanbark — I didn’t delete your posts. One of the moderators pulled them back into moderation and asked me to take a look because the tone was a little strident and we try to keep guest thread polite, and the moderator wanted a second opinion. It took only a few minutes for me to get to them once I finished my first post of the day, which I didn’t think anyone would mind given that this is an old thread at this point. And, since the threethat I read were repetitive, I posted one of them and responded, and left the rest of them on hold. Your #194 is there in the thread above — I’d suggest you check again, because I freed it myself before I responded to it earlier.
We cut no deal with Hillary — nor do we cut deals with anyone else who chats on the site — we use the same rules for every person who is a guest here, just go back and look at any of the Blue America posts and see, as well as the Book Salon posts or any other guest, including Joe Wilson when he was on.
And, we had Chris Dodd on earlier — and the topic he wanted to discuss was Iraq and his bill on the subject that was at issue at that point and time. It was his topic, what he chose to discuss, and what we did talk about in the comments. If you want to make factually unsupported accusations, be my guest. But there was no deal cutting — only a first step at conversation with the second Presidential candidate from the Democratic field that we’ve managed to bring in to chat with readers. We are hoping to do more of them in the future. Jane and I both think that more information is a good thing — and that seeing how a candidate deals with his or her constituents is also valuable.
Your impressions of Hillary were not improved by how she did or did not answer questions or the topic that she chose to address. And that is propping her up how, exactly? I trust our readers to be smart and informed and to make their own decisions based on all of the information — including how a candidate handles him or herself and what they do or do not answer. This has nothing to do with some sort of “site appeal” and has everything to do with getting our readers first hand information about all of the candidates instead of them having to get it through some media filtered narrative. We hope to have them all on at some point — that includes Dodd and Clinton who have already been here (Dodd for two sessions, actually) — and the rest of the entire Democratic field to the extent they will agree to come on and talk with our readers (and, frankly, we may not get all of them, but we’ve extended the invitation nonetheless because we think it is important).
This is all VERY disingenuous…
I don’t know what you call a “deal”. Let me be specific, Christy:
Did you, or anyone else formerly connected to FireDogLake discuss with Hillary or any representative of hers, what subjects might or might not be covered on her visit? Did you discuss in any way, shape, or form, what tack YOU might take, in dealing with people posting on the thread?
Are you saying that your dealings with she or her rep, were simply: “Come on and post.” followed by: “I’ll be there.”?
I find that hard to believe.
And, the fact remains that I put up a post last night (which someone deleted before I got up this morning.) in which I criticized (and was sarcastic, about) you guys inviting Hillary on your site to do what amounted to a puff-piece Q & A cameo.
And three more posts I made, were also deleted. And the first three WERE repititious, because I couldn’t believe that posts as relatively mild as they were (see some of your regular guest bloggers for “strident”.) would be deleted.
In your #93 reply to Slothrop’s (and others) concerns that limiting the thread to one topic, as he puts it, “just doesn’t seem very bloggish”, you defend letting her come on your site for a SAFE discussion, with some clever footwork:
“Staying on topic is pretty much how we do every chat with any guest…because they prepare to discuss the topic of the post, and not every topic known to man.”
Me: I don’t recall you having anyone on here of Hillary Clinton’s stature before, but if one of the staunchest democratic supporters of Bush’s war, and of Joe Lieberman’s wretched posturing in favor of it, after he lost to Ned Lamont in the democratic primary, can’t do better than coming on one of the top antiwar blogs, and delving into a safe topic like equal pay for equal rights, while ducking (with your exquistely reasoned protection) the issues about the war and her support for it
(until the mid-terms spelled out the political cost for her) then, Christy, I would strongly suggest that your first two sentences on the thread should have been:
“Welcome, Sen. Clinton.” Followed by:
“Here she is, gang! Fire away!”
I mean, do we need ANOTHER president who, when asked an “off-topic” question, starts “farting and tap-dancing”? (Thanks, Kurt. :o) )
No one HERE had any interest in talking with her about “every topic known” to man, as you so straw-horses-assedly put it.
We wanted to talk to her about the issue which is just a little more important than anything else currently facing us, and which is going to define america for generations to come. I also happen to think that the fallout from it, is going to be one HELL of a lot more detrimental to, repititiously, my three granddaughters and the rest of the females in america, than all of the sexist Simon Legrees’ in the Congress of the United States.
I don’t even care if you cull out the repeat questions, but for you guys to allow her here, and then to ask (INSIST…on pain of having our posts deleted) the rest of us to treat her like a sacred cow, is unconscionable.
The only “off-topic” question of any substance that I recall her answering, was the one about Gonzales’ resignation. She said she had called for it a month ago.
Good.
But then:
Things Come Undone: “…it would be unfair if during your presidency, the republicans tore you down because you had to raise taxes to pay for G.W. Bush’s war.”
Which I thought was a hell of a good point, and to which Hillary said nothing.
And Albatross#35:
“Senator Clinton, please repudiate your support for the occupation of Iraq, and for Sen. Joe Lieberman. (I would think that all of the FireDogLake management team would be interested in going “off topic” on that one.)
“It’s time for principled, courageous, leadership that dares take a stand. Thank you.”
Again, Hillary decided not to take the opportunity to address THOSE concerns.
I just don’t see how you guys covered yourselves in this one, with anything but poop.
Hillary Clinton can’t get elected. Fact: there are practically zero repubs who
would vote for her, if Atilla the Hun was heading up the GOP ticket.
Conversely, we in the progressive wing of the party are increasingly appalled, to the point of nausea, at her little triangulating fandance. The sooner we can force her out of the race, the sooner we’ll get a candidate who CAN win.
Christy, you guys have a blogsite. You’re not MSNBC. NO appreciable percentage of the people who post here, ever voted for george bush. All of which means we have more leeway to ask the questions which the MSM has so studiously avoided, in helping to pimp the war to us.
It’s shameful for this good site to do the same.
She supported Joe Lieberman.
She was against Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy, which gave the Senate back to the democrats by a 1 vote margin.
-
I’m late to this, as I’ve been traveling.
Let me start by expressing my understanding with anyone who felt confused by what could and could not be asked, per our community practices. Senator Clinton was a different kind of guest than others we’ve had: we’ve never had a presidential primary nomination frontrunner before.
What’s more, the nature of her schedule was such that we could not make an announcement in advance, though she and all the candidates have always been welcome. We did get a general idea of what she wanted to talk about, and the post was submitted to us in time to post it. We felt the topic was an appropriate one for the site because we focus a lot on gender equality.
Now, because we are in new territory, the confusion comes when we don’t have experience with what is “on topic” for a given discussion when the guest is a presidential aspirant. Such a person is not quite like the subject matter experts we’ve had in the past (book authors, Tom Matzzie as an organizer), but that doesn’t mean we’re going to create a context where spitballs are welcome.
Matt Stoller asked a very good question that was accountability oriented, getting to much of the activist base’s criticism of the Senator, that she has not fought for things the base cares about, so how serious is this post? That ws a perfectly good question, which used the post as a springboard, no problem. The same question could have appropriately been asked in a public appearance where the Senator might have made an address on this topic.
The fuzzier area comes when questions that are not based on the “opening remarks” or the blog post come up. We’ve erred on the side of not allowing those in this go round, and feedback is welcome. We were relying on past guest writer precedents, but we’re inventing a new model here in real time, as you can plainly see. We’re still developing as we go.
One thing people need to recognize is that our moderators worked furiously to keep back invective and disrespectful comments the like of which we don’t ever allow here to be directed at blog posters or community members.
May I ask, if we have made this an open topic discussion, would the load on our moderators have been so extreme as to be impossible? How would the community have responded? Yesterday there was a blizzard backstage.
We are not DailyKos, nor do we try to be, nor do we denigrate their model. We moderate comments and community tone here in a way Dkos does not, that’s our niche, and we don’t apologize for it.
Now, as for concerns about Senator Clinton ignoring some questions, that’s her doing. If she is to be criticized for it, fine. Them’s the breaks. She ignored my question, too. As for her short stay in the discussion, ditto the above.
Had we had more experience with this situation in the past, perhaps we could have set it up better and prepared people better for the setting. But we all learn together as we go along.
Those are my thoughts. We’re listening, sorting this out, and frankly I think we’ve earned a bit of community trust on this to get it right. We may not do it exactly the way a given individual will like, but we’ll listen to the community and use our own best judgment, as ever.
Hillary, I’ve posted to your website quite a bit, and I support you fully. Glad to see that you’re spreading your message. It’s a message of hope for women. And it’s about time. Right on!
Pachu, you made a fair response. I had no desire to see it turned into a mud-slinging contest against Hillary.
What I DID desire, was to see some tough questions asked, and answered, about her staunch support for the war, and for Joe Lieberman’s nearly disastrous (if we had lost one more senate seat in the mid-terms) turncoat campaign. And, even more than an Edwards-type, once and for all, repudiation of her vote to enable, the SPECIFICS of what she thinks she can, and should, do to end the war.
When NONE of that was forthcoming, and when it was obvious that Christy was going to defend it by stamping her foot, and then deleting a few of the more “strident” posts, then, speaking just for myself, it seemed like more of the same old MSM policy of:
“Come here and we won’t ask the hard questions, and we won’t let anyone else do it, either.”
And, I still would like to see someone among the site managers speak about how this little visit was arranged, and what it took to do it.
We all know that Hillary has been catching holy hell from the progressive wing of the party. We all know she’s worried about it.
She cannot be elected, possibly, even nominated, without us.
In this situation, I’d be astounded if, even with a brief “appearance” such as this one was, her handlers (At this point, I use the same terminology I’d use for bush, and why not?) didn’t want to have some control over the give and take.
Again, did the subject of what latitude for questions, even come up, and if it did, what, exactly, was the response of anyone speaking for the site?
We have been asking this of the warpimps in the MSM for, lo, these few years.
Why can’t we ask it of the site overseers here, especially after they tried to, and essentially, did, restrict us to questions about the entirely comfortable subject of equal pay for women, about which, it’s safe to say, practically everyone who posted on that thread, agreed?
Again, let’s just invert it:
If Edwards or Obama or any other candidates come on here, are we going to have the same “single topic” restriction? And if so, who chooses the topic?
I would suggest that if the FDL management gets one of them on, that you guys tell us, to the syllable, what agreement was made, if any, in the process of getting them to post here.
It would be good, if, in the case of Hillary’s thread, that was retroactive.
Thanks, TB.
————————————————————————————————-
One last reply from Pach, appended here since comments close automatically after 24 hours:
A couple of things:
I haven’t been involved in every invitation conversation but I know they have been invited to come and interact with the community under the same guest standards we’ve already explained to you. There’s nothing more to it than that, and I’m sorry you don’t seem amenable to accept that, but there’s no contract in writing, no special arrangement other than hosted chat as we’ve explained.
I’d also say that no one is entitled to get transcripts, etc., of private conversations. You either trust us, or you don’t. We speak with our actions and tell as much as we can, but some work has to be done in private for the work actually to get done.
The topics may be proposed by guests or sometimes we seek guest experts for topics we select. There’s no set rule on this, except that we have to feel the topic is either important or of interest to our readers.
For example, we often post content we know won’t generate the most commentary, but we think it’s important. Our regular labor posts sometimes fall into this category.
The editorial control of this site remains with the site host, Jane, who often consults the rest of us. That’s not, nor should it be, a purely democratic process. We don’t have recommended diaries here by community election, as that’s what is done elsewhere. We have no problem with that model; it’s just not what we do here.
You also said:
Actually, I don’t know that. Conversations I’ve had with some Hillary people suggest to me she does not believe she will win enthusiasm from the netroots under any scenario and doesn’t feel she needs to get it for the nomination.
She’s made no concerted effort to reach out to or win the ardor of the online community, and I don’t expect that to change, this appearance among us notwithstanding. Her campaign does not believe netroots = progressive wing of the party. I think they see us as a much smaller niche among many potential primary voters.
That, anyway, is how I read her campaign.