Well, that didn't take long.
You know, I wouldn't like it, but I could understand it, if Obama sold women down the river in some back-room deal where he got something in exchange for it. You know, "OK, Republicans, we won't give women access to family planning, and, in exchange, you'll vote for increased unemployment benefits," or funds for light rail, or money for solar panels, or, hell, SOMETHING.
But, no. Obama sold us down the river and got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from the Republicans. Not a promise of future cooperation, not an agreement to quit sniping, nothing. Nice work.
So when the Obama administration does find itself backed into a corner and forced to do something good for women, it happens as late as possible on a Friday afternoon and with as little fanfare as possible. When it fucks over women, it does so publicly and for no reason at all. Not off to an especially auspicious start, are we Barack? But, then, women are, after all, likeable enough.
5 comments:
I thought the newspaper got it wrong when I read this today. Unbelievable.
What did I tell you, Hecate?
Women for Obama = Back Burner.
I am not even upset, because I expected nothing more.
I'm so not surprised that I'm having trouble feeling outrage. The only word that keeps coming to mind is "motherfucker."
While it sucks that funds for family planning are being cut, I don't understand your point about "as little fanfare as possible". Do you want progress, or fanfare?
Real progress is being made; the decision about restoring funding to NGOs was made in the right direction. Obama doesn't feel the need bait and humiliate the "Losers". Is that really so bad?
This sucks. And it wasn't even necesary since they didn't need the Republican's vote. And unltimately no Republicans voted for it anyway. So why, why, why?
Post a Comment