Previous post:

Next post:

Obama: Just Wait, the Ladies are on the Way

by Keith Koffler on January 14, 2013, 12:47 pm

President Obama today sought to rebuff criticism that he doesn’t have enough women working for him, insisting women had played key roles in his administration and suggesting that more appointments of women are in the works.

“I would suggest that everybody kind of wait until they’ve seem all my appointments . . . before they rush to judgement,” Obama said during an East Room press conference.

Obama’s initial major appointments were all men – Chuck Hagel to be Defense Secretary, John Kerry to be Secretary of State, Jack Lew to be Treasury Secretary and John Brennan to lead the CIA – and he is beginning to incur criticism even from allies for the lack of women in the White House and in his administration.

The president defended his record of appointing women, alluding to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as key players in his first term. Clinton is leaving, while Napolitano and Sebelius are not.

“I think people should expect that that record will be built on in the next four years,” Obama said. “It’s premature to assume that we’re somehow going backwards.”

{ 1 trackback }

{ 23 comments }

RickW January 14, 2013 at 12:55 pm

Personally, I don’t care what sex his appointments are. I’d rather be gender blind and focus on such trivial things as experience, qualifications, etc. I never thought anyone could top “Treasury Timmy” for stupidity but Jack Lew seems to to.

Lizzy January 14, 2013 at 12:57 pm

Treasury Timmy…I may have giggled:-$

RickW January 14, 2013 at 12:59 pm

Is it too much to ask that we have a Treasury Secr who’s signature does not look like a group of snails humping?

Lizzy January 14, 2013 at 1:07 pm

Well considering the pool Obama picks his appointments from it
will only get worse.

Julie Brueckheimer January 14, 2013 at 1:06 pm

Speaking as a woman, I agree. I don’t care for affirmative action in any guise. It’s the person’s qualifications, period.

Scottso January 14, 2013 at 1:15 pm

I agree. In fact who cares what gender or sexual preference they are…
How about just appointing people who believe in American exceptionalism or people who don’t side with Islamists?

Kerry, Hagel, Brennan?

Langley Spook January 14, 2013 at 2:47 pm

“Person’s qualifications”… guess no one ever applied that to Obama (re: life-story, college & law school records, job background, financial records, political voting history…)

Lizzy January 14, 2013 at 2:54 pm

I don’t care about men vs women I want the most qualified and sadly I
don’t think Obama has picked a winner yet.

DeniseVB January 14, 2013 at 2:32 pm

I vote for competency over diversity in government appointments. If well qualified ladies are being passed over for nimcompoop political paybacks, then let those voices rise to the top. We’ll listen.

Obama should have borrowed “Romney’s Binder Full of Women” instead of his frat house full of campaign jerks making fun of it.

srdem65 January 14, 2013 at 1:30 pm

Until or unless he can appoint a LBGT, bi-racial, mentally challenged, physically disabled, elderly , illegal alien MrO will never satisfy the progressive base of his party who demand diversity in government..

DeniseVB January 14, 2013 at 2:54 pm

I have a close relative that works for DHS and JNap does hire and promote based on that criteria srdem ! At least that’s word through the department :D

Star January 14, 2013 at 2:08 pm

Yes–bring on the disappointing women!

Quintus Arrius January 14, 2013 at 3:07 pm

You have to admit the last WH photo of the current lineup looked like a “Dockers” commercial. Too funny.

Swedishlady January 14, 2013 at 3:29 pm

I read about Obamas press conference in one of my daily papers over here. Many sneering comments after the article. Most “liked” was : So this guy wants to reduce the deficit – by raising the debt limit ?????
Skeptic voices here as well about the Obamanomics. We have heard many socialist politicians talk before.

Julie Brueckheimer January 14, 2013 at 9:02 pm

Spending more to work your way out of debt. Works for individuals, doesn’t it?

mo1 January 14, 2013 at 4:13 pm

I favor competency over gender as a factor in selecting Cabinet officers and others. But when the person making the appointments argues one party is engaged in a war on women, he should look for qualified women. There are many available.

Of course, it may be that women are too smart to join the Obama Administration. :-)

Star January 15, 2013 at 11:08 am

They probably want to make some bank.

sportinlife10 January 14, 2013 at 7:02 pm

Do you remember the MS magazine cover, “This is what a Feminist looks like”, and the picture of the o, baring his Superman chest-
I don’t care what they do, I just enjoy the uberfeminists screwed. You foolish women, it’s the Chicago Way. Now: how to account for the ValJar?

Reminds me of a libsib, who, forgetting herself, blurted out to me, “Do you believe Romney had no one of color on the ticket?” Um, yas. I think he probably went for competence (not a word to be used in the same sentence with, for instance, the spiritual/societal goal: DIVERSITY). Imagine voting for competence: it’s against the narrative.

Shaky Jake January 14, 2013 at 7:06 pm

Janet Napolitano is a woman?

Not Nabob January 14, 2013 at 8:42 pm

He (she) is trying to be.

CAR January 14, 2013 at 7:22 pm

Sorry, the last sentence in Keith’s post caught my eye. I say we’ve been going backwards for about four years.

And to think his second term hasn’t even started yet. SIGH.

Not Nabob January 14, 2013 at 8:38 pm

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are about as manly as I am, so they actually don’t count Mr. PissAnt Obama…..

proof January 14, 2013 at 9:56 pm

I hear Rahm is bringing him binders of women!