Obama's Speechwriter's Sexism

Jon Favreau, the chief speechwriter for President-elect Barack Obama, engaged in behavior that embarrassed himself, embarrassed the President-elect, and embarrasses Democrats. What I end up asking my self is this - forget that the behavior was exposed to the public - in the privacy of his own mind, what was funny about it? What was he thinking? What was in his mind that he thought that was funny?

When we spent months railing about the acceptance of the sexism and misogyny against women (Keith Olbermann's casual sexism and misogyny and the Left blogs acceptance of it comes to mind as well as the behavior of the boyz of the blogs generally) - this is what we mean. I wonder if anyone was shocked by Mr. Favreau's behavior. They should not have been.

Speaking for me only. See also Shakespeare's Sister blog.

< Obama Names Shinseki as Veterans' Affairs Chief | Douthat's Disingenuous Anti-Choice Blatherings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I was starting the day just fine and now (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:09:04 AM EST
    I'm all chapped.  Sometimes I just wish people would grow up.  If the quality Jon Favreau's babes has been getting better with his success he is going to start noticing that the quantity of their I.Q. and self esteem is going to be lacking after all the girls see this!

    Agreed, MT and the buck stops with Obama (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    Obama might get away with claiming he didn't previously know these guys were total boneheads. But now the whole world knows and the President-Elect is obliged to be a man who separates himself from the 'boys'.

    Obama has to take leadership on this. He needs to clearly communicate that Mr. Favreau has engaged in reprehensible misconduct for which he will be decisively FIRED.

    If Favreau is allowed to resign while feigning new-found enlightenment, he will be cast as a victim; Obama will look weak, and Hillary will be cast as the villain who ruined the poor, frisky, brilliant boy's career.  


    I wish I could say I was shocked (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:14:26 AM EST
    But after the primary, after the months of seeing how very acceptable, funny sexism is to so many who call themselves progressives, I can honestly say I was not shocked. I was ANGRY.

    Looking at that picture hit every button for me: the years when as a woman I felt powerless; the embarrassment I felt about my own body as a young girl because adolescent boys were clearly unable to contain their hormones and immaturity.  But I believed, I honestly believed people when they told me that that cr*p ended when we all matured.  And then I got to college and it was even worse because it was enhanced by alcohol at frat parties.

    And that is what I saw in the picture.  The frat party mentality...the mentality I trashed George W and friends for.  But lo and behold that mentality is acceptable on the left too. I saw and read for months on the blogs, on MSNBC....the giggling men, the tittering, the jokes.  When I complained on blogs, same old, same old: "get over it, it's just a joke.....you old women are too sensitive."  And sadly it is the same now.  Overwhelmingly Favreau is being defended by the same old crowd of boys on the blogs.


    "... when we all matured" (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:10:59 PM EST
    Excellent comment, and you come pretty close to articulating my perspective on this. But when do we all mature? Maturing is a process rather than an event, and the pace varies from person to person.

    In my own experience, men generally have a more frivolous attitude towards sexuality than women do. And these guys look pretty young (i.e., under 30) to me.

    It's not to say that young men are incapable of maturity on this subject-- far from it. But it's not a common result of the unexamined life.


    One of my commenters expressed similar views (5.00 / 14) (#57)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:29:41 PM EST
    His argument was that men mature later than women, and that a 27 year old male wasn't really fully adult.

    To which the obvious response would be: Wouldn't it be better for everybody if Obama hired an adult as his speechwriter?

    Which brings me to another frame about this discussion that bothers me. People keep saying "this young man" or "these guys."

    The real issue is Favreau's title: Chief Speechwriter. He has an official position reporting to Obama; he's not just some frat boy out in East Armpit U. And if Obama lets this go, he licenses the behavior, because Favreau has a reporting relationship to him.


    My opinion of Obama's judgment (5.00 / 9) (#69)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    will diminish if he keeps Favreau as his chief speechwriter.  From the NYT article about a year ago, it is clear Favreau doesn't just write from Obama's outline.  This guy has enormous power, ceded to him by Obama. So much power, it is not clear to me Obama would be renowned for his public speaking if Favreau weren't the 27-year old male behind the man.

    A friend of mine who caucused for (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by hairspray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    Hillary in El Paso described the behavior of the Obama "goons" as she called them.  This behavior seemed to be characteristic of the immaturity and irresponsibility of the Obama people at some of the caucuses.  Is this what put him over the top?  And are we stuck with this now?  I agree that he should be fired.  He acts like he is full of himself and he needs to learn a lesson.

    You Must Have Missed (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:07:11 PM EST
    All the "goons" that posted here and those worse at other sites which had a more permissive comment policy.

    By the way is "goon" a gender neutral term?



    My standard response (5.00 / 7) (#70)
    by Fabian on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    to any argument that men aren't mature or responsible or "can't help themselves" (usually sexual assault) is that if men really are immature, irresponsible and unable to control their own behavior...then we should give them a status that reflects that.  If they aren't capable of shouldering the heavy burdens of being an adult, then remove those responsibilities and privileges.

    Those arguments are just excuses.  We are supposed to agree with whichever line of BS and ignore the offending behavior. Whadda load of bollocks.


    `Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner' ... (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:10:09 PM EST
    is not a sentiment I'm much prone to, but neither am I "shocked, shocked" to find this kind of thing going on.

    And I agree that the person in question has demonstrated his unfitness for the position of trust that he holds.


    Favreau blew it multiple times. (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Fabian on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:27:22 PM EST
    The topper was posting the image on the web.

    I could accept an apology if he hadn't done that, given him some kind of benefit of doubt but the posting removed all doubt.  Now there is no doubt at all.


    I doubt that Favreau posted the photos... (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:13:35 PM EST
    It seems more likely that somebody else at the party had access to the pictures and to Favreau's Facebook account. Maybe, it was the woman in the photo, who was standing in the background and looking less than amused.

    Imo, Favreau can apologize till he's blue in the face and gray in the beard. The overriding issue is the unforgivable, debased mind set that was manifested in Favreau's actions at the party.


    My question is...... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:18:14 PM EST
    Does Favreau get a free pass, since he was hired before the vaunted Obama "questionaire?"

    I can't help but think of the humiliation, and tongue biting, The Clintons had to go through.

    I wonder what role Favreau had in drafting that horrible document?


    When did the questionaire come out? (none / 0) (#127)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:27:41 PM EST
    His appointment was announced on the 26th.

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:14:09 PM EST
    However, Favreau wasn't an outsider. He was as "in" as any insider could be. His appointment simply formalized the position he already had.

    I guess my question is, did he have to fill out the questionaire? And if he did, did that indemnify him from subsequent stupid acts that most probably would have disqualified him from being accepted?


    The return of the adults (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:56:18 PM EST
    I agree with everything you say. The average 20-something man (or any age for that matter) is not fit for a role of national prominence.

    This kind of thing is a dissonant counterpoint to the oft-repeated mantra that "the adults are back in charge".


    Good grief. If Hillary's speechwriter had done (5.00 / 16) (#3)
    by Angel on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:14:32 AM EST
    something similar towards Obama the Obama crowd would be howling for their dismissal as well as hanging Hillary is effigy.  Where's the outrage for Jon Favreau?  I hate the Keith Olbermann's and the Josh Marshall's of the world because they help to perpetuate this sexism.  I need to go take a bath after seeing this photo again.  There is absolutely nothing funny about it.  

    I disagree (3.25 / 4) (#5)
    by Lolis on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    I have seen Obama supporters pose with his cutout in ways that might offend, trying to be funny. This guy has apologized and it shows his immaturity but I don't think anyone should demand he lose his whole career over this. Obama and Clinton have both been gracious when people have done stupid things. They forgive.

    Please, this is not the behavior (5.00 / 17) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:31:51 AM EST
    of a White House speechwriter.  He needs to be fired.  He deserves to be fired.  His whole career isn't over.  I'm sure that NOW has plenty of speaking engagements for him if he's interested in discussing the problems that women face in our culture.

    Militarytracy has it right (5.00 / 11) (#15)
    by cal1942 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:07:46 AM EST
    with this:

    this is not the behavior of a White House speechwriter

    To use a well known example; can anyone imagine Ted Sorenson doing something like this?

    The little snip should be fired. He has a load of credentials, he'll find work.


    I did not say he should be fired. I said that if (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by Angel on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:37:03 AM EST
    Hillary's person had done it then the Obama people would be calling for their head.  I do believe that.  I've kept my opinion on whether or not he should be fired to myself.  This was a stupid and immature act but it also shows how profound sexism is in our society.  Supposedly the left is beyond this crap but apparently not.  Jon Favreau certainly needs to grow up.  Maybe this will help him in that regard.  I hope his mother, his sisters, his girlfriend and every other woman in his life gives him grief over this.  He needs to learn a lesson.  And others can learn from that lesson as well.  

    I'm going to say he needs to be fired (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    and speaking of arrogance this a.m., there is the arrogance of civilians who wouldn't listen to Shinseki and gave him the boot and there is also the arrogance of other civilians out there about to hold key positions in the new administration.  This is a photograph of many things and arrogance is one of them.

    From a professional stand point - (5.00 / 18) (#24)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:50:39 AM EST
    setting aside the sexism issue - posing for a picture like that - one loaded with negative imagery no matter what the offense is - is one incredibly stupid thing to do if you are a leading member of a President's or candidate's communications team - the image is complete with branding on the other guy's t-shirt for the Obama camp.  That is amazingly stupid for someone with the level of responsiblity that he has.  The fact that he did not immediately have the image deleted from the camera reflects really poorly on his skills and judgement as a communications professional.  Really poorly.  He should have anticipated how harmful an image like that one would be to not only his reputation, but also to his boss. From that standpoint alone, it would be hard for me to trust him enough to keep him around in a staff position even if he is a brillant speechwriter.  I'd fire him.  His job is about image - creating image - making his boss look good - that photo shows that he lacks the maturity and professionalism to do that.  I've seen people in the PR trade fired for much less.

    I don't think he's stupid (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by starsandstripes on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:13:10 PM EST
    I think that he made an assessment of whether this whole thing was stupid and decided it wasn't - and why should he think otherwise after what we've been subjected to for the past year or so. Acts like this are at the very least ignored, if not lauded. In his mind only positive things could come of that picture.

    Good old boys will be good old boys (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by Fabian on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    We can add Favreau to the list that includes Olbermann and Matthews and ....

    Why do they think their behavior is acceptable?  Because their friends and family and coworkers think it is acceptable.  

    Why did he post it online?  Because he thought it was funny and thought others would also find it to be humorous.  People don't usually put their names and faces to things they are ashamed of or embarrassed by.

    I'm glad Favreau outed himself.  


    Good point on the branding (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:31:51 PM EST
    Both guys should resign. Podesta can find them jobs. They'll do fine.

    Favreau has "declined comment" to press (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:57:33 PM EST
    From the original WaPo story:

    Asked about the photos, Favreau... declined comment. A transition official said that Favreau had "reached out to Senator Clinton to offer an apology."

    I don't know what: "reached out to Senator Clinton to offer an apology" means in this context? What's the difference between reaching out to offer and apology and actually apologizing?


    Where or When did he apologize? (none / 0) (#31)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:05:58 AM EST
    Do you have a link?

    You've seen photos with an Obama cutout? (none / 0) (#94)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:17:30 PM EST
    What were those "Obama supporters" actually doing to his cutout?
    I have seen Obama supporters pose with his cutout in ways that might offend, trying to be funny.

    I want to comment on this.... (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:22:32 AM EST
    ...but I am speechless.

    Likewise (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:09:56 AM EST
    Not speechless. (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Fabian on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:40:30 AM EST
    Just awaiting two things:

    The Obama official response.
    The Favreau official response.

    There will be the usual speculation and commentary.  Some prominent names will weigh in here and there.  We'll take note.

    But the two responses I am interested most in are those two.  


    Per CNN: (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:45:41 AM EST

    Please let me know if the TV political shows this a.m. address this incident.  


    I did not hear it addressed on (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    any political show this AM. I watched Reliable Sources; This Week; Chris Matthews.  Perhaps I missed it as a few times I went in the kitchen to get some coffee.

    One more interesting thing (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:55:26 AM EST
    I searched on dkos....one mention with two comments by one person in a "open thread."  Not mentioned on Open Left.  
    On Huffpo the usual.....tons of nasty, hateful sexist remarks; a thread on MyDD with a lot of anger between the "it's sexist and obnoxious" and "get over it, it's funny" camps.  Sad.

    Why are those responses taking so long? (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:21:59 PM EST
    Will Favreau have to write the official response both for himself and President-Elect Obama ;-)

    CNN commentary (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:40:55 AM EST
    So, who is the woman who has that No Bull show, can never remember the darn names.  She commented on this Friday with an interesting twist.  She was angry that Hillary accepted the apology and said it was a playful thing of "rival camps".  So, the commentary was about Hillary claiming sexism during the primaries and now not making a big deal about this.  The whole thing got twisted to be about some horrid Hillary failing.  That she was basically lying about the sexism during the campaign.  I was stunned.

    Hillary did it (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:46:25 AM EST
    She makes people act in inappropriate ways.  She's has superhuman powers.

    Campbell Brown. I read her article. Blame it (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by Angel on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:59:13 AM EST
    on Hillary.  That's the mantra.  Obama and his people are not to blame......yada yada yada.  Always Hillary's (or Bill's) fault.  I'm sick of it, have been sick of it, am weary from trying to fight it.  

    Her name is (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:59:57 AM EST
    Campbell Brown.
    She has made some good points as well as some moot ones over the course of the last few months.  She is definitely shilling for viewers on this one.  She, and most people know darn well, the reality.  If Hillary makes any demands of this jerk or of Obama over this jerk, it will be more of the same old "Hillary is creating drama; Hillary is whining; or Hillary doesn't have a sense of humor".  This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't for women.  We have all been there.  You weigh the pros and cons and in this case, I think Hillary did the right thing.  She's needs to ignore twits and their minutia because on the world stage she needs to establish a bit of "above it all" diplomacy.  She is not campaigning and now she has to carefully pick her battles.

    But other women, like me and people close to Obama, need to make sure he hears how this feels to women.  This jerk needs to get an earful and maybe even publicly show he understands his stupidity......and if he can't pull that off honestly, he needs to be out of a job.


    Yeah, Campbel Brown (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:05:35 AM EST
    What was amazing about the commentary was that since Hillary did not find fault with this incident, precisely because of the point you make, if she did make an issue the "drama" cloud would be raised, then her accusations of sexism before were disingenuous.  What a leap.

    Clinton senior adviser Philippe Reines:
    cast the photos as evidence of increased bonhomie between the formerly rival camps.

    However Hillary's reputed take on it is considerably more tongue-in-cheek:

    "Senator Clinton is pleased to learn of Jon's obvious interest in the State Department, and is currently reviewing his application," Reines said in an e-mail.

    Hillary has left herself a lot of wiggle-room here, so to speak.


    I agreee for the most part... (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:32:11 PM EST
    This jerk needs to get an earful and maybe even publicly show he understands his stupidity......and if he can't pull that off honestly, he needs to be out of a job.

    Favreau's dehumanizing, frat-house mentality goes beyond "stupidity". He can apologize for it, but the mentality itself may be ineradicable. God knows, we're awash in public figures who've never outgrown this sort of thing.


    The only acceptable excuse......... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:25:38 PM EST
    "I was drunk."

    Some excuse!


    I'll be eagerly waiting for Campbell Brown's (5.00 / 18) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:03:25 AM EST
    criticisms of her colleague Jaxk Cafferty's blatant sexism and misogyny.

    Hillary Clinton in now a part of the Obama administration.

    Any criticisms she has of Obama officials will be behind closed doors now.

    Campbell Brown is an idiot of longstanding.

    No Jeralyn I will not refrain from this insult.


    Blitzer "interviewed" Brown today @ CNN (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by wurman on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:20:05 PM EST
    When talking heads interview each other we are privvy to the ultimate in dis-information.  A few days ago, president-elect Obama humorously skewered a reporter for asking a question about nominating Sen. Clinton for SecState when the 2 candidates were so vehement toward each other during the primaries.  The gist of the answer was that the campaigns were a great deal of rhetoric & the reporter either knew or should have known that.

    Brown, on air, fulminated against Mr. Obama's "dismissive" attitude toward the reporter.  Blitzer gave Campbell Brown a wider, more expansive forum to repeat her defense of the dumb question & for her to point out that her colleagues have reason to ask such "probing" questions & that there will be more of them.

    This after 9.5 years of faux reporters not asking any "probing" questions of Bu$h xliii.

    This after Brown's own stint as a White House correspondent, i.e., R-TV "stenographer" in the Rove-realm.

    Ed Murrow must be puffing on a Lucky Strike, somewhere, howling in laughter at these two poseurs posturing for & with each other, on camera, as they pretend to be reporters who give a rip about "news."


    Did Brown say her spouse works for the GOP? (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:57:19 PM EST
    Campbell's husband, Daniel Samuel Senor, is a Republican consultant who regularly appears as a Republican commentator on Fox news. I also recall reading somewhere that he was a consultant to the McCain campaign.

    No so long ago, such conflicts of interest would have disqualified Campbell from reporting on the election, let alone moderating one of the Democratic debates.


    Campbell Brown has been a disgrace over the (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by starsandstripes on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:16:42 PM EST

    It was interesting to see her ignore the real perpetrators so she could indulge in her favourite pastime - Clinton-hate.


    Fire the Guy... (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by santarita on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:16:34 AM EST
    Does Obama really want someone in a key communication position that apparently hasn't progressed emotionally and remains at best a 15 year old boy in a man's body?

    Agreed, a 27 year old man is not a boy... (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    unless we are speaking in terms of arrested development.

    Obama must see it differently. After all, during the early stages of the campaign, a 47 year old Obama sometimes referred to himself as a "skinny, young guy with a funny name".

    Quite the male prerogative, no? It's hard to imagine Sarah Palin, on the stump, referring to herself as a "young girl", even though she is 3 years younger than Obama.


    Yeah; It is Sexist and Demeaning (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:17:04 AM EST
    So what practical steps are people here doing to make sure that Favereau pays a price for it?  Has anyone contacted the Office of the President Elect to demand Favereau's head?  Has anyone started an on-line petition?

    There's nothing wrong with sitting around and tut tutting and whining about how unfair it is that Hillary would've been crucified if her head speech writer had done something like this.  What Favereau did was bad and she would've been crucified and that would've been unfair and yet another example of sexist treatment by the media in general and left-blogs in particular.

    But sitting around with tounges clicking does look an awful lot like a bunch of tight-assed Missouri Synod Lutherans going on about how reprehensible it is that one of their neighbors cheated on his wife.  If it's so terrible it deserves to be addressed.  

    So what have you actually, like, done today to make sure Favereau is shamed and banished?

    Good point. Let's start (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:34:26 AM EST
    by calling his mom.

    I'm For It (none / 0) (#26)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:53:33 AM EST
    Got her number?

    Looking...looking.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:16:09 AM EST

    A bit over-board, IMO. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:48:19 AM EST
    Called Obama's HQ, Called NOW. (none / 0) (#81)
    by nulee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:32:57 PM EST
    WOw (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:41:15 PM EST
    Sounds to me that if you had your way and women ran the world it would be just as bad as it is now. Years of punishment as payback for years of sexism sadly equals continued sexism.

    Not surprised. Power has a way of bringing out the worst in some people.


    You've got proof of this? (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by hairspray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:14:00 PM EST
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Faust on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:17:07 AM EST
    in the privacy of his own mind, what was funny about it? What was he thinking? What was in his mind that he thought that was funny?

    Been a while since you've been exposed to men between the ages of 12-25?

    Rest assured no "thinking" occured during the making of this picture.

    Perhaps (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Lena on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:52:27 AM EST
    Obama should then cease hiring any men under the age of 25 (women of this age would be welcome, I presume?).

    I don't think this idiot deserves a pass. Simply excusing him because he's under 25 gives everyone the impression that it's okay for men to be d*cks, so long as you're under 25.

    I know that's the informal policy for frats, but somehow I wanted more from Obama than some frat boys peopling his administration. Hmmm. I wonder if we accidentally invade a country or detonate a nuclear bomb, his administration can use the under-25 excuse. Or does that excuse only work when you're making fun of women/Hillary Clinton?

    Boy, I feel sorry for the under-25 women who have to put up with these jerks. Thank God my partner was never like this clod, not now, not when he was under 25. It is never okay.


    He's 27, born June 9, 1981. (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM EST
    aha! (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Lena on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:04:45 AM EST
    so we must now revise the age during which men have carte blanche to act like mindless numbskulls who can degrade women freely to 27! Can I get an amen?

    Yes, AMEN (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:07:34 AM EST
    and a question.  Why the hell do men get an age "pass" and why does the "boys will be boys" mentality persist in our society?

    "boys will be boys" (5.00 / 8) (#65)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    I think if anyone is willing to write it off as "boys will be boys", they should be able to explain how these "boys" are mature enough to hold their present jobs. Can't have it both ways. They are either men, or boys . . .

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Faust on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:33:41 AM EST
    I'm not sure how you got "this behavior is OK" from my two propositions: "this behavior is standard for a certain age group" and "this behavior has nothing to do with thinking."

    The dude could be 40 and it would still be what it is: immature behavior that instantly recalls (at least for me) the kind of behavior I remember from college and also from my time spent working in a High School. Particularly the latter actually. There was a brief period where I tried to reason with the young males that populated my computer lab, but I gave that up when I realized they were driven by forces that were completely non-rational.

    As for the particular guy in question he should at a minimum apologize profusely and publicly and if further discipline was enacted I would have no objection. But I'm not going to try to understand "what he was thinking," as no "thinking" occured here.


    And not thinking... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:33:16 PM EST
    qualifies Favreau for an official position how, exactly?

    Never said it qualifies him for anything. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Faust on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:49:43 PM EST
    I said that trying to understand "what he was thinking" is a waste of time.

    OK, writing in haste... (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    It's just that the "Boys will be boys" thing annoys me almost as much as "Where's your sense of humor"?

    Well I don't think I said (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Faust on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    "boys will be boys" in a sense where the inevitability of boys being boys was used as a justification of the behavior in question. Rather I was saying "exposure to boys and immature men, (particularly immature men that are drunk), will cause one to realize that this behavior is not the result of a rational thought process and that therefore trying to understand it as such is a waste of time."

    This is a hard proposition to understand apparently, but that's why I get for responding to what was almost certainly a rhetorical question from BTD.

    Let me tell you what I find more disturbing than the picture itself. The fact that it was obtained from his facebook page. Performing the act in the picture is standard young male stupidity, by itself innapropriate, particularly for a 27 year old in an important position. However, posting it on a facebook page when you are an important member of the most powerful political team in the country is so monumentally stupid that he should probably be fired purely on the grounds of his overwhelming stupidity let alone the fact that he saw fit to have himself photographed groping a representation of someone as important as Hillary Clinton.

    The fact that he posted it on a page "about himself" indicates that said event was not merely stupidity in passing but an entrenched disposition he felt completely comfortable sharing with the public.


    Sorry, didn't mean to imply any justification (none / 0) (#100)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:43:52 PM EST
    to what you were saying. the BWBB just prompted that reaction from me since it is so commonly used as a justification for this type of crap.

    I agree about the overwhelming stupidity displayed. O.M.G. I have to keep reminding myself that book smart doesn't equal life smart. When was it, about 2 weeks ago when the Obama team posted the 63 page job app that asked about all your online social network accounts, user ids and any potentially embarrassing behavior? You remember, all the networks etc covered it! That just ratchets up the stupid factor even more. I'm guessing he hasn't been held accountable for his behavior much . . . let's hope we don't find out he's been to a workplace harassment seminar in the recent past . . . .


    No, you didn't (none / 0) (#134)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:51:42 PM EST
    Miscue, misreading on my part. [grovels]

    no worries, (none / 0) (#139)
    by Faust on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    I should have expressed myself better the first time around.

    He's 27, fwiw... (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:56:27 AM EST
    27 going on 13. (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:23:02 AM EST
    Calendar years and emotional years don't always match up.  (See Bush, George W.)

    Send this kid packing and send a message by hiring a female to replace him.


    Good idea (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:36:15 AM EST
    Send this kid packing and send a message by hiring a female to replace him.

    Although, I would suggest any female up for the position interview the rest of the speech writing staff that she'll have to deal with on a daily basis  ;)


    Favreau heads Obama's 3 man speech writing team (5.00 / 7) (#144)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:22:58 PM EST
    Prior to this incident, I had no idea that Obama has a full team of speech writers, nor did I know they were all male, all white and all within the same age group.

    If Obama hopes to address the concerns of the electorate at large, he'd be well advised to DIVERSIFY the group of people who are putting words in his mouth.


    This one is a no-brainer. (5.00 / 11) (#19)
    by Jake Left on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:24:12 AM EST
    If Favreau has any shread of class or concern about Obama, he would quit immediately and apologize for being a lame jerk. If he doesn't, he should be tossed out.

    Give me a break. This isn't even close. There is no social or free speech issue here. This is a clown who doesn't know how to curb his lesser angels.

    Jon. Apologize profusely. Resign. Help us out here. Your behavior is exactly what we are trying to avoid with this presidency.

    Here's the problem. (5.00 / 11) (#22)
    by Lysis on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:44:40 AM EST
    If it was a Sarah Palin cut-out, the outrage on the left would be far less than it is, and if Hillary hadn't been named SOS, the outrage would also be far less than it is.

    Sadly, the left collectively chose not to speak up against sexism when it was against Hillary, with only a vocal minority railing against it.

    That vocal minority became significantly smaller when the new target of sexism was Sarah Palin.

    BTD has been one of the only bloggers consistent on this.  Anglachel is another.  

    And I'm thankful that you've linked to Shakesville, as their leadership on this issue was prominent and very necessary.   As Melissa there always clearly states, when sexism is acceptable against any woman, it's acceptable against every woman.

    I learned through this primary that I'm a guy who cares more about being a loyal feminist than I do about being a loyal Democrat.  

    You are right (5.00 / 9) (#30)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:05:42 AM EST
    Sadly during the Palin mess, if one spoke out against the sexism aimed at Palin, one was called out as a PUMA, a bitter Hillary dead ender, a woman who could not get past Hillary's loss.

    After a while, I took a break from the blogs.  The sexism against Hillary was awful, against Palin, awful, stupid and a gift to the right. To this day, (some of) the boy bloggers STILL don't get it.  The pseudo intellectual blogs refuse to even mention this Favreau incident.  The other blogs, famous for their anti Hillary antagonism, are filled with the "lighten up", "get a sense of humor",  and "it's no big deal, you are overreacting" comments.

    It is clear to me.  Many, many progressives are so comfortable with sexism it is a part and parcel of who they are and they are incapable of seeing themselves as sexist.  I don't know how you reach people like that.


    You aren't kidding that you took (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:53:51 AM EST
    a break from the blogs.  It wasn't just boy bloggers going after Palin.

    I understand that (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:56:44 AM EST
    but sometimes I cannot tell if the blogger is male or female.  And I avoided some blogs for quite a while.

    female progessives also sexist... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by S on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:25:46 PM EST
    Jjc...sadly it is not only the 'progressive boyz' who are sexist...

    ...one of the most disappointing aspects of the primary and election season was to hear the 'progressive girlz' rationalize and spin their sexism...

    ...female blogs, supposed 'feminists' and radio talk show hosts I once admired and read/listened to were actually at times WORSE than the boyz...

    ...Hillary was not 'good enough' or did not represent or care about women's rights 'enough' for them...to them, Hillary might have been a woman but just not the 'right' woman for them...
    ...some as we know, went so far as to actually call Hillary Clinton a f'ing whore...nice!

    ...but when Sarah Palin hit the scene...all restraint was gone.....to some of these elite progessives, Palin was not even a 'woman'...

    two female bloggers I once respected lost all sense of perspective...and from my POV, completely exploited Sarah Palin being a female...

    in fact, some of these women are so fickle they apparently have to 'turn the channel' when Palin even appears on TV...these two females bloggers exploited Palin to the point of being ABSURD...

    ...and sadly both of them continue to look for every excuse to ridicule...no fairness, no objectivity...frankly they are as bad as the criticism we used to pose against the right...and childish and immature on top of that...

    I lost a lot of respect for some of the progressive women and so called 'women's groups'...they exposed themselves as being concerned with 'women' as long as they were 'women' like them...it does not stretch to encompass 'all women'...

    ...in my book, some of these women and groups lost their integrity and fell into the 'group think' mentality and took more cheap shots than the boyz...


    Oh no doubt about it (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:28:27 PM EST
    I should have been more explicit.
    The blogs I visited during the primaries were predominantly male.  

    But I was mucho disturbed by some of the women who blogged, and by some of the ONLY FEMALE VOICES in the media who were silent about the sexism.

    I understand that females can be sexist too.....
    and sometimes worse than males...or maybe it just hurts more when another female pulls the same cr*p when you honestly expected empathy and understanding and indignation.


    kudos to BTD, indeed (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by denise k on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:55:12 AM EST
    I am impressed and thankful to have his voice on these issues.  They can be hard to write about consistently, because it is only natural to want to "pile on" about the candidate of the other party.  And where, as here, the very choice of Palin was (imo) fundamentally sexist, it can be especially hard. Some of the ostensibly sexist critique around Palin arose directly from the Right's putting her up as a cynical -- and sexist -- ploy to co-opt women voters at the same time as they promoted a fundamentally anti-woman agenda.  She was "a babe" beauty queen, "a madonna" with five kids and "a wing-nut" who opposes abortion for rape and incest victims.  The perfect Republican woman.    

    Here's a great post (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:47:48 AM EST
    on this subject.  It ends with explaining Hillary's reaction and it made me smile.

    Read and enjoy:

    That was good to read (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Burned on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:11:55 AM EST

    Yes, Thank you (none / 0) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:25:01 PM EST
    very much.

    MSM and sexism (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by S on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:58:34 AM EST
    BTD laments:

    What I end up asking my self is this - forget that the behavior was exposed to the public - in the privacy of his own mind, what was funny about it? What was he thinking? What was in his mind that he thought that was funny?

    When we spent months railing about the acceptance of the sexism and misogyny against women (Keith Olbermann's casual sexism and misogyny and the Left blogs acceptance of it comes to mind as well as the behavior of the boyz of the blogs generally) - this is what we mean. I wonder if anyone was shocked by Mr. Favreau's behavior. They should not have been.


    well, for one thing BTD...the people you mention, Keith O the boyz of the blogs, etc...those are some of the people...to answer your question...who think this photo is so funny...a riot...and anyway...anything goes when it is Hillary Clinton...

    ...over at the Confluence there are a number of photos with some other females head superimposed on that photo...and Bostomboomer and Dakinikat over there ask the question ...

    'Are you offended now?"

    they have superimposed MICHELLE OBAMA'S head, along with Caroline Kennedy, Rachel Maddow, Campbell Brown, Pelosi, McCaskill, etc...

    ...something tells me if that photo had orginated with Michelle Obama's head and body being groped and fed a bottle of bear...or Caroline Kennedy, etc...suddenly it would not seem so funny to the 'boyz' or Obama's 'staff'...or perhaps I give them undue credit for some sense of decorum...

    Tell us, BTD, are you (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:59:27 AM EST
    comfortable with Jon Favreau as the sub-silentio voice of the incoming President?

    Like someone asked in an earlier (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Amiss on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:12:04 PM EST
    thread, what would be done if it were a cut out of Michelle Obama?

    They would have been called racist. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:22:38 PM EST

    The workplace... (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:23:54 PM EST
    What does it say about the White House as a workplace that Obama's chief speechwriter is groping an image of the Secretary of State?

    Nothing good, I think.

    And the other guy is head of OMB? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Teresa on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:32:01 PM EST
    Is that true?

    It doesn't speak well of the White House as a workplace Lambert. It speaks of workplaces all over. Same ole sh*t.

    It has happened to me multiple times, it happened to my 16 year old just a few months ago. We have made no progress in the treatment of women in the workplace other than the fear of lawsuits.

    It's just disgusting.


    That can't be Orszag (OMB) (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    Orszag's 40 years old and thin. The "Obana staff" guy is young and looks a little meaty.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:52:41 PM EST
    Orzag has glasses and what looks like a toupee.

    ooh. (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:57:11 PM EST
    Good. I shouldn't believe everything I read! (none / 0) (#75)
    by Teresa on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Hey, you two, what do you want. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:58:15 PM EST
    Obama has promised a non-smoking White House (which is probably already federal law_.

    No it was not (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    That was a joke.

    I agree with those (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    who say he should be fired.  Unprofessional.  He travelled with Obama he has Obama's ear, etc...I mean c'mon.  He's not a campaign staffer in some obscure local office.  He doesn't deserve a job in The White House if he can't act professionally.

    It's normalized (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    1. The sexism was normalized during the primary, over and over again.

    2. Now we see that it's also normalized within the Obama campaign.

    This kind of thing was so normalized it didn't even occur to them it would be a problem. The source of the image was Favreau's FaceBook page, after all.

    What wil normalize it (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:34:17 PM EST
    for me is if this guy gets to keep his job.  Top White House speechwriter after this?  Obama should realize this isn't about Hillary and her reaction and whatever the State Dept. says, this is about the women who voted him in and the women who go to work everyday hoping they will be respected and not subject to demeaning frat boy games.  

    By no normal standard should he get the speechwriter job.  He should be untapped.


    Obama can't let Favreau 'graciously' resign: it would suggest that Obama thinks the incident is too minor to warrant intervention on his part.

    I'd settle for a gracious resignation. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    Wants to spend more time with his family, for example.

    Wants to spend (5.00 / 5) (#202)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    more time on Facebook.

    BTW, thank you BTD (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Lena on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:56:55 PM EST
    for going after this subject relentlessly. Oftentimes when women focus on this issue, they are automatically discounted as feminists and humorless shrews (as noted above).

    General question: is this the same guy who wrote Obama's speech(es?) on racism; about the need to bring the problem of racism out into this light; and how we need to begin a dialogue on this issue?

    when you sign up a 20 something (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:49:39 PM EST
    year-old frat boy as your chief speech writer, what you get is a 20 something year-old frat boy as your chief speech writer.

    and you all are shocked because?

    He should be un-signed-up. (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:54:24 PM EST
    I showed the picture to my husband (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:05:23 PM EST
    and asked, "what does this picture say to you?"

    He responded:

    "This guy is saying Hillary is their b*tch now," and he asked, "what's she doing about it?".

    I said, "nothing that I know of."

    He said, "well then she agrees".

    Funny how he held my position, without my influence.  Must be why we've been together for 20 years.

    I truly believe the only person other than Obama who has the power to make this into what it should be -- a firing offense -- is Ms. Hillary Clinton.

    That she isn't doing it, that she's putting up with it, sends a message that women should buck up and shut up.  This is a teaching moment, and she shouldn't ignore it, even if the good old boy's club does.

    And I've heard the argument, well, her career would be over.

    Martin Luther King did not hold political office.  Someone, at some point, needs to be the Martin Luther King for women.  Otherwise, it's all downhill from here.

    I'm not blaming the victim here, I'm saying that by ignoring this at the highest levels of government, she's making all women victims.

    If Michael Vick had the responsibility to be a "good example" why doesn't Hillary Clinton?

    It's Obama's White House/workplace (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:54:01 PM EST
    He needs to set the tone. Hillary may have said something to him (Obama)in private, which is generally how it's  done. (been there, done that . . ) And it's up to Obama, as his boss, to deal with the situation. What's interesting is most cases of sexism/harassment on the job aren't as easy to get documentation on. Which keeps it from being a he said she said situation.

    TiS2, I always value your judgment, but... (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:59:26 PM EST
    This is Obama's Administration and Hillary is his subordinate (a fact that makes me cringe).

    As the aggrieved party, Hillary has the prerogative to lodge a complaint with Obama. And it is Obama who has to be entirely responsible for officially reprimanding and firing the offending party. He is the boss of all of them - and us as well.


    I do not think that (5.00 / 8) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    the outrage to this juvenile and disrespectful behavior should be placed on Mrs. Clinton.  She was the object of the derision and Favreau's boss should speak out against such behavior generally, and, specifically, to his Secretary of State nominee.  Moreover, the outrage should be shared by all thinking people, especially those who supported Mr.Obama. Indeed, it should be made abundantly clear that  Favreau's deal to purchase a luxury condominium in Dupont Circle, as reported today in the NYT, may need to fall through.

    Looks like "pass" is the operative (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:19:51 PM EST
    word.  Unfortunately.

    This is kind of how I envision (5.00 / 10) (#167)
    by lucky leftie on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    the more belligerent of Obama's devotees-immature, obnoxious, and hostile/contemptuous toward women. This doesn't surprise me in the least, nor does it surprise me that so many are leaping to this bozo's defense.

    I couldn't care less how he feels about women, that's between him and the oh-so-fortunate ladies in his life.  But this public display of disrespect is infuriating. I'm female and I pay taxes.  Presumably, I'll be paying Favreau's salary come January and I'd at least like some lip-service to the idea of gender equality.  

    But don't you know? (5.00 / 9) (#174)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:35:40 PM EST
    This is a non issue because only women care and only some of them....you know, those overly sensitive old feminists who don't know how to have fun.

    So far it has been ignored on most of the blogs run by men.  And it has been pretty much ignored by the press except for Campbell Brown who is blaming Hillary for not making it an issue.

    Who would like to take bets on MSNBC?
    Will Rachel pretend it doesn't exists just like she pretends that Pat Buchanan is a harmless old uncle?
    Will Chris Matthews and friends teeter and giggle about it or ignore it?
    How about Keith?  Will he tag Favreau as Worst Person in the World or will he blame Hillary for causing the drama by, you know, existing?


    female taxpayers, give or take a few bucks.

    Joing this thread late (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by smott on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:33:50 PM EST
    ...so I've not read through it all (been at SS - you would not believe the dedication of the trolls there...)

    But my sense when this happened was "Watch the story just die away..."  
    As do many stories potentially harmful to Obama.

    Have we seen that anything happened to Favreau as a result of this? Discipline even, never mind fired - can't imagine O would do that...

    But I've not seen any further mainstream stories about this.

    ANd if anyone remembers Samantha Powers - she's back working for Obama, on transition.

    If only a spokesperson for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:04:24 PM EST
    would just say:  can't discuss.  Personnel matter.  But, President-elect Obama makes it clear he will not tolerate sexual harrassment by any person in his administration.  

    Nagahappa (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by smott on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:19:54 PM EST

    And the press complicit as usual.

    And KUDOS to BTD (5.00 / 5) (#192)
    by smott on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:39:03 PM EST
    And Shakes for running these posts.

    Amanda Marcotte has not mentioned it at all.

    Alternet did...

    Sigh (5.00 / 9) (#203)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 07:34:43 PM EST
    1. Thank you so much, BTD. It was lonely here the other night on this topic without you around.

    2. Thank you to all the males here and elsewhere speaking out against this. So important and so appreciated and so heartening. Imagine where we'd be on racism if 99% of the white people were still denying it when it happens.

    3. A big 'fu' to all the males who are either remaining silent about this or actively being sexism-deniers at every opportunity. Know that you're exactly the same on this issue as Rush Limbaugh. Part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    4. On the issue of males of a certain age getting a pass on this kind of behavior, I don't think so. Zero tolerance policy for disrespecting or demeaning anyone anytime on the basis of their race, gender, religion, etc. in my house, and if my son (or daughter) engaged in that kind of behavior, I'd kick his @ss to the curb. Luckily, I wouldn't have to because he gets it and has always gotten it. Still, this kind of mindset is either tacitly encouraged or actively changed. One or the other.

    5. Look at the picture again and mentally replace the faces of those boys with the faces of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. Fits perfectly, doesn't it? So, what does that say about Obamacrats?

    Glad you picked the story up (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by zyx on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:13:56 PM EST
    found it several places--and found "So what" and "kids/young men will be kids" and "lighten up" comments.

    I am SO SICK of this. These guys--Obama's guys like this--are in very high-level, grown-up positions. No excuses.

    No excuses for the aging wannabe fratboy. (5.00 / 7) (#207)
    by snstara on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:44:18 PM EST
    This "man" is obviously far too immature to be employed in a position of power.

    Oh, and I wouldn't worry about his future: I'm sure he can find a job at MSNBC if Obama fires him.


    Embarrassing (2.80 / 5) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    Adolescent, stupid, and a bit cowardly yes, but sexism, sorry don't get it. As much as Favreau would like to have his way with Hillary, the most he can achieve is molesting a cardboard cutout, and then when it goes public, all he can do is shrink in horror with humiliation.

    If that is a sexist, well then he should be the posterboy for it, considering that there have been zero reports of his "sexism" toward living and breathing animate forms.

    Hillary is reviewing his application, lol.

    do you think sexism and racism (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:38:35 PM EST
    are measured only by the way people are documented treating other flesh and blood people?  I do not...

    Then your understanding of sexism (5.00 / 8) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 01:46:05 PM EST
    is incredibly lacking.

    I mean that in all seriousness.

    your comment is quite troubling to me.

    I think I will have to write about it in a later post.


    OK (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:39:50 PM EST
    I get it, men groping a cut out of Hillary and posting it on facebook is sexist, although in this case I think it is more complex.

    Do you think that Faverau's act of groping a cutout of Hilary,  is equivalent to an act where a white person put a noose around a cutout of Obama?

    I don't. I think Faverau and his pals are pathetic here. It is an empty gesture, hardly a show of macho dominance and power over women.

    Even a cutout of Hillary makes them look like children. Facing her in real life, after this drunken stunt, will certainly make them feel like fools.


    I'd like to be there. (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    Me Too (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:45:23 PM EST
    And look at the whole picture (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by starsandstripes on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:05:14 PM EST
    One guy is groping the cut-out's breast, the other one is holding it by the hair, feeding it a bottle of beer and kissing it - you don't see the show of macho dominance and power over women? Give me a break.

    Wow (4.57 / 7) (#107)
    by starsandstripes on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:01:25 PM EST
    Do you think that Faverau's act of groping a cutout of Hilary,  is equivalent to an act where a white person put a noose around a cutout of Obama?

    Yes, actually I do. They're both expressions of dominance over another group of people - male over female, white over black.

    I take it you've never been groped before, but take it from me, it is a violating, humiliating experience. And the fact that people such as you don't see that makes it clear - sexism is way more acceptable than racism.


    You Take It Wrong (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:04:11 PM EST
    Have been groped by both sexes. Have not been raped, murdered or lynched though.

    Being groped voluntarily (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by starsandstripes on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:07:56 PM EST
    and non-voluntarily - two different things. A woman who is being force-fed a bottle of beer while her hair is being held and groped - doubt it's voluntary.

    Maybe you think the depiction of this act is not violent enough to be termed sexist. But I'm sure a group of white people around a cut-out of Obama and watermelon and fried chicken would be termed racist - and there's no violence in that.


    Yes (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:14:31 PM EST
    I have been groped non voluntarily. I think that groping defines a non consensual act. You must be thinking of petting which I believe is a consensual act.

    A woman who is being force-fed a bottle of beer while her hair is being held and groped - doubt it's voluntary.

    Are you referring to the cutout?

    And yes your example would be racist.


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by starsandstripes on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:18:09 PM EST
    I'm not sure what you're arguing about? I think you'll agree that picture is sexist. So what's your beef? That we're outraged? That it's not sexist enough to be outraged? That Favreu's obvious discomfort is punishment enough and we should give the guy a break?

    In This Case (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:27:15 PM EST
    I think the effigy of Hillary trumps her gender, iow this less a representation of womanhood than of a ex contender, imo.

    What was a cut out doing there anyway?


    if they (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:31:51 PM EST
    were going to treat her as your run of the mill ex-contender, they could've put up their hands in triumph or any number of other things.  but put your hand on a fake breast and have your friend kiss her other side?  i believe that treatment of your foes comes under the category of "raping and pillaging."

    Yes (none / 0) (#129)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:38:25 PM EST
    Although, in this case, very wannabe, imo.  Could be wrong, and this guy may be a vile sexist. Somehow I do not think that is the case. More likely drunk behavior that did not involve any actual women.

    Who knows, maybe the real woman in the photo was next. Doubt it though, I think this had to do with Hillary as contender who happened to be a woman.

    Pretty gross in anycase. And hugely embarrassing for team Obama.


    Except that in this case (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by starsandstripes on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:49:24 PM EST
    You can't separate the gender from the ex-contender in what was portrayed here. Unless you're saying that it is ok to make a sexist gesture with a cut-out that represents a woman because that woman is an ex-contender which then sends out the message that no matter what your accomplishments are, you will always be a woman that we can (pretend to) dominate.

    I'm sorry, I'm not buying your argument.


    For women who have (4.40 / 5) (#104)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    been date raped during/after a drunken frat party, it conjures up all kinds of frightening feelings. I understand that perhaps some people still don't think "date rape" is that big a deal.  For women who have been victimized that way, it is.

    The photo conjures "date rape" period. (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:49:52 PM EST
    That is probably apparent to any woman, or man, with any modicum of sensitivity toward the issue of sexual assault.

    Date Rape Not A Big Deal? (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:01:47 PM EST
    F'off, if you are suggesting that is my position.

    I don't think Jjc is suggesting that (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by starsandstripes on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    I think the poster's suggestion is it is that kind of frat-boy behaviour - the groping and forcing someone to drink alcohol that conjure up images of date-rape because that's how many of those rapes are set up.

    Stars, the person who is arguing with you (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:53:04 PM EST
    probably knows exactly what you all mean. It's a form of serial bait and switch - more switch than bait though.

    Really? (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    Not how I took it.

    Back at you (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:17:56 PM EST
    for being disingenuous.  I never suggested YOU thought anything. I was clear.  Some find that image disturbing because of what it conjures up for them...the imagery of the frat party, the drunks pouring alcohol down a woman's mouth......
    that is the scenario for many who have been date raped.
    I said SOME do not see it as that big a deal. I never said YOU.  So get over yourself.

    Go look at Friday afternoon's open thread. There were a lot of people who were essentially saying that images doesn't reflect or influence how people think and act toward one another in the real world. It kind of boiled down to the following paraphrased arguments:

    *'There's no harm. It's only a cardboard cutout, not the real Hillary (who's being shat upon)'.

    *'It's not sexism because the hatred is only being directed at Hillary and not all women'.

    *'It's OK to defile an image/effigy of an individual, like Hillary, or Michelle, or Barack. It's only a problem if the attack is directed at the group as a whole'.

    *'Guys do this kind of jokey stuff to cardboard cutouts of other women like Kathy Ireland all the time, so its not a personal insult to all women or Hillary.'

    There were a lot of counterarguments, but people (including me) were desperate for some adult supervision and input from you.

    In a nutshell, someone needs to explain that "Birth of a Nation" is not just a movie.

    I REALLY hope you write your proposed post.


    Please do. (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 07:10:44 PM EST
    Oh, who cares? (1.33 / 3) (#141)
    by NealB on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:14:31 PM EST
    Come on folks, it's a young man standing next to  a large cardboard photo of Hillary Clinton. Period.

    No, it is Obama's Director of Speechwriting (5.00 / 8) (#143)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    acting like the total sexist a** that he is.

    hmmm (1.00 / 2) (#210)
    by nogo postal on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 04:30:37 PM EST
    Whenever there is agreement with the loons at no25cents..there should be cause for concern.
    It is easier to hold a cardboard cutout from in front than behind. (Isn't that what he is doing?)
    When was this picture taken?...may that June night when Obama became our nominee?
    It is amazing the outrage here when HRC herself is not outraged...
    Do folks here believe they should be fired for for a moron moment at work? ...
    Over 20 years ago my wife gave me the cardboard Marilyn with her white dress up..
    It is still in our rec room...
    ...and yes over the decades..this piece of cardboard...CARDBOARD.. has been groped at parties..
    ..including both woman and men who have led lives
    linked to feminist philosophies....

    ...how many "outraged" have given time..money..or other resources to your local shelter for battered women and their children...
    Here in Denver these folks could use a donation


    I am sure..no matter where you live..there is something similar..

    If something pisses you off..make a tangible effort to address it...or not....

    Merry War Against Christmas...

    Is Favreau Big Dawg's speech reviewr? (none / 0) (#20)
    by jmacWA on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:30:54 AM EST
    Just asking, don't have a clue, who is going to be reviewing Bill's speeches before he gives them.  Director of Speech-writing sounds like the appropriate guy to be doing that to me.

    I understood the vetting (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM EST
    will be of Bill Clinton's speaking engagements, not the content of the speech.  

    Wrong, (none / 0) (#132)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:49:41 PM EST
    His speeches will have to be submitted for review.

    I'll find a link and post it in a couple of mins.


    Has he said anything in the past 8 yrs (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:58:07 PM EST
    via a speech that has been a problem for the current administration or his wife as a NY Senator? Said or done anything that made it difficult for Powell or Rice on the world stage?

    That troubled me (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:28:44 PM EST

    At what point does a public servant, just by the totality of their long, and public, resume, give them a pass from what I consider a sophomoric, and hubris laden, "questionaire?"


    Here's one: (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:54:36 PM EST
    UPI  Thanks for the correction.

    and thank you (none / 0) (#142)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    for doing my work for me.

    I wonder if Favreau (none / 0) (#116)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:13:22 PM EST
    wrote this speech from yesterday?:

    Yesterday, we received another painful reminder of the serious economic challenge our country is facing when we learned that 533,000 jobs were lost in November alone, the single worst month of job loss in over three decades. That puts the total number of jobs lost in this recession at nearly 2 million.

    But this isn't about numbers. It's about each of the families those numbers represent. It's about the rising unease and frustration that so many of you are feeling during this holiday season. Will you be able to put your kids through college? Will you be able to afford health care? Will you be able to retire with dignity and security? Will your job or your husband's job or your daughter's job be the next one cut?

    As SusanG points out, "In a speech about universal fears and hardship, he is addressing his primary listeners as women." Not in the usual context of "women's issues" but as Susan puts it, "as legitimate, fully fledged and very concerned and invested breadwinners." A change for the better from the usual assumptions built into our language, and clearly the effect of a conscious effort to go beyond them.

    Favreau did something stupid and reprehensible. I'd like to think that maybe it's possible for people to learn from their mistakes and to do better going forward. A person with a suddenly heightened awareness that he's been embarrassingly caught out doing a juvenile and sexist thing may just work harder to try to rectify it in everything he writes from here on in.

    I'm sure (5.00 / 11) (#124)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:24:16 PM EST
    in being denied a speechwriter job for his extremely irresponsible, unprofessional, and sexist behavior, he will have plenty of time to reflect upon it as he goes forward doing other communications/PR work.

    The PR damage Obama incurs by keeping this guy on is far greater than phrasing in a weekly radio address.  I am sure Favreau could write a wonderful speech on sexual harrassment for Obama.  Wouldn't stack up to a hill of beans though.


    Do you have the same (none / 0) (#130)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:41:35 PM EST
    unforgiving throw-away-the-key attitude toward the justice and incarceration cases posted about here? Just curious.

    There'd also be damage from losing a speechwriter who's developed his style over a period of years to channel Obama's own. But I'm sure if this actually does turn him into the kind of liability you say that he will be cut loose.


    justice and incarceration? (5.00 / 6) (#133)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:50:52 PM EST
    please.  nobody's sending him to jail.

    This is a question of hiring and Obama's own vetting process.  Do you hire this embarrasment onto your communications staff?  No.  If you do, be prepared to lose a lot of the trust women have in you.  Having Favreau as Obama's voice after this p*sses me off.


    No one's sending him to jail (2.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:29:51 PM EST
    but you sure want to send him into professional exile or maybe execution.

    I think more positives can be gotten out of the situation in the way of fighting sexism from him staying on. He'll have a powerful incentive now to develop greater sensitivity to it than most and to show it in what he writes.


    I don't care if he gets hired tomorrow (5.00 / 8) (#148)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:37:28 PM EST
    by somebody else.  Lots of people in pictures like that get hired.  These days kids are careful of putting up pictures like that on Facebook and so forth though, knowing that a potential employer could find that to be an embarrassing mark against the person.  The person is immature.  The person will bring the wrong attitude to the work environment.  I monitor that kind of stuff pretty carefully so why can't he?

    As said by other posters above, a picture like that would give pause to all kinds of employers.  I think it should make Obama pull the plug on him no doubt.  Because this isn't just any job - you are representing the President of the United States when you work for him.  

    Aside from the fact that it would p*ss me off to see him get a pass for his sexism, it would make me uncomfortable to work in that environment.  So he gets to pose groping Hillary?  What asnine things am I allowed to get away with?  Because clearly the bar is low on acceptable behavior.

    What "incentive" is he going to develop from being rescued from public shame by a loyal Obama?  From being spared all consequence?

    Writing speeches isn't all that hard.  It's like debate club - I take a perspective, I write about it as sympathetically as possible.  I don't think we're going to get a window into Favreau's magical healing process through Obama's speeches.  I hope not - they're Obama's speeches.


    It also supports the continuation (5.00 / 8) (#151)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:45:30 PM EST
    of that behavior in not just Obama's speech dept, but in depts all across the American work place

    Aside from the fact that it would p*ss me off to see him get a pass for his sexism, it would make me uncomfortable to work in that environment.

    They go from Frat Boys to Good Ol' Boys . . . . never ending cycle it seems. Thankfully my current co-workers all have four legs and fur and I'm my boss.


    You seem to be under the impression (none / 0) (#154)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:54:55 PM EST
    that he took his own photo and proudly posted it himself instead of having been caught in a stupid and probably drunken moment at a party by someone else.

    Somebody else posted it to HIS Facebook? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:59:11 PM EST
    I mis-posted below, but the question still is worth asking.

    It's his Facebook page, his responsibility, just like his behavior at a party is.


    "...caught in a stupid and probably drunken (5.00 / 7) (#161)
    by Angel on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    moment at a party..."

    That's the point.  He did it.  Whether or not he got caught is immaterial to his qualifications to serve.  His judgment is severely lacking.  Come on, this guy writes speeches for the President Elect.  He's supposed to be mature and show good judgment.  He does not possess either quality.  Can you imagine the uproar if DeeDee Myers had been caught groping some cutout guy's privates?  I can.  She would have been raked over the coals and called a slut, a whore and other nasty names, and then she would have been run out of town or burned at the stake.    


    He certainly POSED for it! n/t (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Fabian on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:12:41 PM EST
    sorry (5.00 / 9) (#176)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:40:08 PM EST
    I didn't see the gun to his head in the photo.  The one making him pose for the picture.

    If he is hired, it sends the signal that you can do whatever screwed up crap you want, have it aired in public, and it'll be cool, if Obama likes you enough.

    Yes, that's what I want to see.


    oh my! quick, someone fetch the (5.00 / 8) (#162)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:10:36 PM EST
    red herring net!

    No one's sending him to jail but you sure want to send him into professional exile or maybe execution.

    personally, i don't care where he goes, as long as it isn't the white house, now. maybe when he grows up, assuming he ever does.

    bear in mind, racism/sexism are two sides of the same coin; if one is ok, then surely the other must be as well.


    Seriously wishful thinking. (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Fabian on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:20:43 PM EST
    He'll have a powerful incentive now to develop greater sensitivity to it than most and to show it in what he writes.

    This could be his "road to damascus" moment, but I rather doubt it.  I'm expect a more "Scooby Doo" moment: "And I woulda gotten away with it too - if it hadn't been for those meddling  __s!"


    "Honey, I've changed!" (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:56:35 PM EST
    Wonder away, and when you find a link, be sure to post it.

    In any case, I'm sure there are equally talented, and fully adult, speechwriters who could write the same speech, given direction.


    I'm sure there are many (none / 0) (#147)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:30:42 PM EST
    talented, and fully adult, speechwriters as well, but not ones that have spent the last four years honing a style that channels Obama's. You think that kind of a skill is easily replaceable with "direction"? Think again.

    This line of reasoning (5.00 / 10) (#149)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    leads us to ignoring all types of sexual harrassment.  "He's a great adman, even if he gropes the secrataries."  

    Apparently one skill he doesn't have, even though he is TWENTY SEVEN YEARS OLD, is behaving with the dignity he should as a member of Obama's staff and a member of the White House.  Keeping him on suggests either an incredibly low bar for the entire staff, or special treatment for one member of the staff, which would certainly make me uncomfortable and displeased as an employee.


    Hmm (none / 0) (#152)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:51:23 PM EST
    Well, I would agree with you if he had actually, you know, groped any secretaries, or the Secretary. But in fact he didn't.

    How do you know he hasn't? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:55:07 PM EST
    Or committed other sexist acts?

    You don't. And he did grope the Secretary by proxy.


    Somebody else posted it to HIS Facebook? (none / 0) (#156)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:56:06 PM EST
    Was it actually on HIS facebook? (none / 0) (#163)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:11:05 PM EST
    Can you point to where that's shown? It's not been clear. The reporting has been very ambiguous about whose account it was actually posted to. Some reports say he took it down and others that he got it taken down. He obviously didn't take the pic himself. I'll change my opinion if it can be conclusively proven to me that he soberly posted that pic to his own facebook account.

    Doesn't matter whose Facebook account it was (5.00 / 7) (#166)
    by Angel on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:16:13 PM EST
    on or whether he approved of its posting.  He made the gesture.  It's vile and ugly.  He did it.  Posed for it?  Well, it certainly looked like it to me.  Don't care if he did or not, though.  

    Of course it matters (1.33 / 3) (#170)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:22:07 PM EST
    Not though to those who just want to give the incoming president as hard a time as they can with whatever comes to hand. That would be you.

    You are wrong. The "I didn't give (5.00 / 6) (#171)
    by Angel on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:27:21 PM EST
    permision" to post the photos is just a lame excuse.  If he had robbed a bank and didn't get caught would it matter?  Yes.  There is no difference whether or not another person saw him do it.  Or whether or not he gave permission to post the photo.  He did what he did and it was vile and ugly and speaks to who and what he is.  This has nothing to with wanting to give the incoming President a hard time.  Far from it.  I want the best from and for Obama.  Condoning immature, sexist behavour:  that would be you.

    I'm in wait and see mode with Obama (5.00 / 5) (#186)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:22:44 PM EST
    Jon has surpassed his wait and see time. He failed. And has purged all his photos on Facebook . . .hmmmmmmmmmmm.

    So if he did it (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:28:55 PM EST
    posted it while drunk, it's OK?

    "How do you know he hasn't?" (none / 0) (#168)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:18:20 PM EST
    What you mean is it would be irresponsible NOT to speculate!

    Are you now going to claim this is a one off? (5.00 / 5) (#180)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:56:42 PM EST
    That this guy has never exhibited sexist behavior in the past? Just this ONE time and it will never happen again? It's totally against his character?

    Yeah, we've heard that one before. Guys aren't usually a sexist a**hole for just 5 minutes.


    Actually,, although you were (5.00 / 5) (#181)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:01:26 PM EST
    not addressing me, once is enough.  Doesn't matter if someone else posted the photo on Facebook or if no one ever posted it anywhere.  Mr. Favreau is not an asset to Obama as chief speechwriter.  Maybe some other position.  Not that one.

    I agree with you once is enough (5.00 / 5) (#185)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:20:28 PM EST
    Once speaks volumes in my book. I just wanted to see if the ol' standby was going to be applied ;)

    The more I consider this the (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:23:02 PM EST
    more depressing it becomes.  And I am listening to truly glorious holiday music.  

    I've been getting more disturbed (5.00 / 8) (#189)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:33:32 PM EST
    the more I see the photo. And the lack of reaction from a certain President Elect. It reminds me of his complete deafness towards women during the campaign. Debates were just brutal with his lack of sensitivity. Yup, he could recite "Race, Religion, Region" but had a hard time finding the word "gender" unless Clinton or Edwards handed it to him. I think he may not understand that some (a lot?) of the grief Black women get isn't because of their race. It's because they're a freakin' woman. He can send his daughters to the best schools etc, but unless he gets a clue and sets an example, they're going to be dealing with this same ol' sh!t. They are females.

    Of course it is . . . (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:37:34 PM EST
    "boys will be boys", but their so freakin' special we need to excuse them  ;)

    He wouldn't dare touch her in public. That's what (5.00 / 6) (#159)
    by Angel on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:59:30 PM EST
    is so pathetic about sexism.  People do things in private that they couldn't/wouldn't do in public without getting run out of town.  The true test of a person's character is what they do in private.  He apparently likes to get drunk and pretend that he's groping a powerful woman.  Does he want control over her?  Does he think he already has control over her?  Does he wish to demean her?  Does he want to make himself feel better?  If he did this after his guy won the nomination I wonder what he did in private during the primaries.  The guy is immature.  I don't care if he writes a great speech.  He lacks the necessary qualifications to serve in Obama's administration.  From the questionnaire for all prospective employees:  Is there anything in your history that would cause embarassement?, etc., etc.  The guy should be fired by Obama.  Sets the tone of what is acceptable/unacceptable for this administration.  Not Hillary's call on whether or not the guy should be fired or resigned.  She isn't his boss, Obama is.  Buck stops with him.

    You're prioritizing (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:44:50 PM EST
    what you see as valuable skills over this embarrassing and sexist picture from a candidate for a job in the WH.  Favreau is just so special that we should overlook this.  

    Excuse me while I go take my own embarrassing photos for submission to the Obama transition team.  C'mon Obama, take a chance on me.


    My understanding is he isn't a candidate (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:35:18 PM EST
    for the job. He's hired.

    Do you think they will accept photos of us groping men? Or do we need to degrade other women?


    On the other hand (none / 0) (#193)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:51:32 PM EST
    if sexism in politics and the media is so endemic, what makes you think any other speechwriter will be any better? I don't think we should overlook it. I think it's an opportunity. I do see his skill as valuable and not easily replaceable, and his value to the new administration as worth salvaging.

    After the intense embarrassment of this, I'd be surprised if he isn't very very careful to bend over backwards in future to improve his gender sensitivity and to express it in his work. Pressing for that to come out of this is worthwhile, howling for his head isn't.  Destroying the career of a brilliant progressive speechwriter is going to help no one but Republicans. At least that's the approach Hillary seems to be taking. That's not good enough for you?


    The humorous, deflective e-mail (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:58:19 PM EST
    by a person assoc. with Hillary Clinton doesn't really indicate to me the entireity of Hillary Clinton's opinion of Mr. Favreau's conduct.

    In addition, Obama, as the representative of the employer of both Favreau and Clinton has a responsibility to try and alleviate discomfort in the workplace by all the executive branch employees, not just Hillary Clinton.  


    I'm sure it isn't (none / 0) (#198)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 07:10:40 PM EST
    But it is the entirety of the public opinion she chooses to express on the matter though. Can we take a clue from that?

    Apparently (5.00 / 8) (#196)
    by Burned on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 07:04:26 PM EST
    he's not all that brilliant and certainly not a deep down progressive.
    He's a good writer and a jerk as far as I can tell.

    I can't imagine anything easier (5.00 / 7) (#201)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 07:13:04 PM EST
    than a talented speechwriter pretending to become gender sensitive in order to maintain his position of prestige - extreme prestige - and financial well-being with Obama.  You can write the most moving words and still be an @ss, as this picture perfectly demonstrates.  Political speechwriting is hustling, no more or less for the most part.

    You think Favreau cares about the hurt feelings of women surprised to see this boor close to Obama?  Or do you think he's in CYA mode?  Has he mustered an apology to supporters yet?


    I'll be happy with (1.33 / 3) (#204)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 07:35:17 PM EST
    communications from the WH that push progressive views on gender and other issues. I could care less if the person they come from is personally a boor or an ass. If he's producing work like what I quoted in my initial comment as a result of this incident, well, where's the problem? Let go of the thoughtcrime and look at the benefit to actions going forward.

    You aren't really saying that are you? (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:52:53 PM EST
    What about the other speech writers he has? Can't they fill the oh, so, incredible void this supposedly special man possesses while the new hire gets up to speed? Are you saying that there isn't another talented EXPERIENCED speechwriter out there that couldn't get up to speed fairly quickly? As I recall, some speechwriters recently got together with a relatively unknown Gov and managed to pull together a speech that matched her style for this lil' ol' convention at the beginning of Sept. Heard it went over fairly well, considering the short notice and all.

    And here I thought talented speechwriters good at their job were fairly flexible and adaptable. Silly me.


    They've worked (none / 0) (#160)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:01:29 PM EST
    collaboratively since Obama was in the state Senate. He knows his thinking on the issues like almost no one else and has attuned his style to Obama's. It would be like chopping off his right hand. I'm sure he'll do it if it becomes necessary, but it will be a bigger liability than just getting another talented speechwriter in place.

    And none of the other speechwriters have? (5.00 / 7) (#188)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:25:40 PM EST
    You are actually saying a speechwriter is more important that sexism? And I'll go one step farther and say I was offended by the violent nature suggested in the photo. I'm sure you won't get it, but just be glad you don't. For us women . . . we understand.

    You don't have a clue (3.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:52:12 PM EST
    what I understand. I am a woman and am just as offended as anyone here by it. I choose to get past it and not go for kneejerk destruction. No one is perfect. Move on. Hillary has.

    "kneejerk destruction"?! (5.00 / 8) (#200)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 07:12:26 PM EST
    Excuse me, but what he did is beyond warranting kneejerk destruction. It's worth considerable value when looking at what women have to put up with in the work place. If you want to forgive his behavior fine, but don't off it on the rest of us who don't think his so called "talent value" warrants it.

    So, where's the line? Who's allowed to treat women like sh!t and who isn't? If he had been a janitor, would it not be ok in your world? Because you find some kind of value to his "talent" should we give a pass to all speechwriters that want to degrade women? Or should we excuse all the men on Obama's staff for any abusive sexist behavior? And the rest of the men in the workplaces of America need to treat women correctly? All I can say is you come off as really weak if you're so beholden to Obama that you would accept this behavior as a woman. If you want the abuse, fine, but don't encourage it for the rest of us. We reject it.


    The line (none / 0) (#205)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 07:58:12 PM EST
    is if a real person had been involved instead of a piece of cardboard, and if he were responsible for promoting the pic in any way instead being something of a victim himself of whoever captured his moment of bad choice at a drunken party, or if he hadn't apologized and apparently abjectly enough to have had his apology accepted by Hillary with good grace.

    apparently ,you missed (5.00 / 8) (#165)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:15:56 PM EST
    the class where we were all informed that everyone is expendable.

    You think that kind of a skill is easily replaceable with "direction"? Think again.

    yes, it is, in a heartbeat. with 300,000,000 people in this country, there's always someone else who's smarter than you, writes better than you and has better manners than you.


    Nope (none / 0) (#208)
    by todayslies on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    This isn't sexist.  It's just silly and stupid.  For all the people jumping up and down screaming "Can you imagine the outrage of Obama supporters if they'd done this to HIS cutout", you're asking the wrong question.  

    The right question is, should ANYONE be so offended by the drunken groping of a CARDBOARD CUTOUT?.

    When the cutout is of Hillary (none / 0) (#209)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:25:08 PM EST

    Im just curious if BT has ever thought about sexism in any other context other than how it relates to respectful or disrespectful treatment of HRC.

    What happened? (none / 0) (#211)
    by coigue on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 05:08:32 PM EST
    I missed it.

    OK. I followed the link. (none / 0) (#212)
    by coigue on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 05:15:55 PM EST
    Shocking. I cannot believe the crap Hil has to put up with.