#Julia, Obama, and Women in the 2012 Election

Monday, May 07, 2012

The Obama re-election campaign has introduced the composite character of "Julia" to illustrate some of its policy initiatives (Barack Obama for America)

The Obama White House is launching its re-election campaign by creating the composite character of "Julia".  Eleanor Clift, contributor for Newsweek and the Daily Beast, talks about the campaign, and the GOP reaction to the campaign's message on women. 


Eleanor Clift

Comments [15]

David from Montclair

Dr Dave,

For the sake of this discussion, let us stipulate that civil unions and marriage are necessary. Then you are quite right. Have government offer civil unions and churches offer marriage. Then it will fall to the government officials to figure things out, such as the marriage penalty in income tax and spousal benefits in social security.

If this were possible, then politicians may continue to discuss marriage as they do religion but without adversely affecting the citizenry.

May. 08 2012 10:13 AM
dr dave from NYC

Why is Federal and State government in the business of marriage in the first place?

How about government offers civil unions fairly and equally to all.... and leave the "m" word to the churches?

So Marriage is offered by a Church to whomever they see fit. They can exclude or include any type of couple.

Government only offers civil union and the associated legal rights to all citizens who qualify. No special exclusions. Like a fishing license.

Separation of Church and State.


thank you

May. 08 2012 12:19 AM
Tina from queens

I come from a European country where goverment controlled 99% of the economy. I cannot even call it bad - it was a total aberation.
Nothing functioned. When you take personal responsability away, the mice will play.
The problem with societies is that people are corruptible. And the big corportation are plenty guilty of that, god only knows! That's why half of the population hate them, besides envying their wealth. But that does not make the goverment employees saints. Just go in NYC and try to deal with a gov agency - good luck ! They behave like gods on earth, and you, the customer, are treated like scum. Just like in the old country!
I don't care one bit for the rich snobs. But I care even less for the envyous poor. Go wash toilets, if you need to put food in your mouth.
I literally did it (with a college degree in my pocket).
Instead of focusing anger on the rich (which will not affect their life anyway) better focusing on improving oneself by reading and studying everynight, instead of watching sitcoms, while eating and drinking junk food. Or just emigrate to a socialist heaven!

The truth must be found in the middle. The gov. does not create jobs.
The drive of the the people who desire to be rich creates jobs. If they could just stay as honest as possible, and as altruist as their money would allow it, maybe then we would have a more just society. But that is rare also.
Until then, the rich and the poor will bicker at each other. And, guess who will win in the end?

May. 07 2012 02:59 PM

Working class women? A college-educated web designer is working class??? Maybe I don't understand these different "class" segmentations.

May. 07 2012 12:12 PM
Jeff Park Slope

Shellib: Government is not the same as business except when government controls business or favors one corporation at the expense of another. Obama by the way, does both and for GM he does both with one company. Most conservatives are not in favor of either of the above, although there are exceptions. I think that some Republicans do support ethanol subsidies which benefit ADM and other large agribusiness companies but adversely affect just about everyone else.
Katrina was an example of government ineptitude, particularly at the state and local level, arguably the result of single party rule enabled by government's ability to dispense benefit (i.e, patronage). At least one large private corporation was out there early helping people effectively (my understanding anyway). Republicans do not want to see people die. Nor do they want people to be poor. (How can they both want people to be poor and want to sell them products that they don't need?)

May. 07 2012 11:22 AM

The government is us. When Ronald Reagan started his campaign against"government power" it was only that part that had to do with "power to the people". As Henry from NJ pointed out, Republicans are super fine with power in the hands of corporations, business. The needs of the wealthy are valid, everyone else should just pull themselves up by thier bootstraps, whether they've got boots or not. Even though history has shown that this is a road to suffering and violence, those that suffer are the peons so it doesn't matter. The Republican response to Hurricane Katrina is object lesson in what kind of government you get with a republican or Libertarian ideology; response will be slow if at all and support will be minimal and sub-standard. We don't care if you die.

May. 07 2012 10:51 AM
Amy from Manhattan

Under separation of church & state, any marriage carried out by the state by definition can't be a "sacrament."

May. 07 2012 10:27 AM

Government "BENEFITS" are programs that ease the pain of poverty. Money put towards purchasing education or for first-time home buyers help ensure that society as a whole continues to grow in a strong and sustainable way....please don't refer to all these incentives for Julia as BENEFITS!

May. 07 2012 10:26 AM

If we didn't have big government to buy big corporation controlling it.

May. 07 2012 10:24 AM
Jeff Park Slope

This is long, but very appropriate. Please allow it. From de Tocquville's Democracy in America, incredibly prescient.
I admit that, by this means, room is left for the intervention of individuals in the more important affairs; but it is not the less suppressed in the smaller and more privates ones. It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones, if it were possible to be secure of the one without possessing the other.
Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated; whereas that obedience which is exacted on a few important but rare occasions only exhibits servitude at certain intervals and throws the burden of it upon a small number of men. It is in vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity.
I add that they will soon become incapable of exercising the great and only privilege which remains to them. The democratic nations that have introduced freedom into their political constitution at the very time when they were augmenting the despotism of their administrative constitution have been led into strange paradoxes. To manage those minor affairs in which good sense is all that is wanted, the people are held to be unequal to the task; but when the government of the country is at stake, the people are invested with immense powers; they are alternately made the play things of their ruler, and his masters, more than kings and less than men. After having exhausted all the different modes of election without finding one to suit their purpose, they are still amazed and still bent on seeking further; as if the evil they notice did not originate in the constitution of the country far more than in that of the electoral body.
It is indeed difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of self-government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be governed; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people.

May. 07 2012 10:22 AM
henry from nj

Those who decry big government but overlook the powers of global corporations and financial institutions suffer from tunnel vision.

May. 07 2012 10:19 AM

btw Ron Paul has been saying the same thing Biden said but w/o the gvt being involved at all. the gvt has no place in the argument. Obama is using it as a political football (cause all he is is a politician not a statesman).

and btw Brian you should probably stop saying its Romney vs Obama...Ron paul won a whole lot of delegates over the last few days. The race ain't over.

May. 07 2012 10:15 AM

did Biden say hetrosexual men marrying hetrosexual men?..the Julia thing is great...but why isn't she wearing a space helmet in 50 years?
you don't need the government to say you are married the gvt has no business in marriage...he is a big gvt guy. The issue is getting the same righst 100%. If 2 people wanted be called married its up to them.

May. 07 2012 10:10 AM
Joe from New York

Eleanor, gee I think you're swell-an-or!

Eleanor, don't jump off that Clift!

I love Eleanor Clift on the McLaughlin Group.

May. 07 2012 10:09 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Link to the Obama website location for “Julia” for listeners:

Julia represents the now acceptable vision from the Left that the government will be responsible for all of the important needs in your life, from cradle to grave. This is a major change in the character of American culture.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have”
Gerald Ford August 12, 1974 (Who knew he had it in him?)

May. 07 2012 09:27 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.