Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alison Whitman Phillips
08:10 AM on 09/21/2011
I wonder why this story didn't make the front page of The Huffington Post?
KnoxScott
whatever
09:07 AM on 09/21/2011
Thank you.....
Javalation
Laughing in a Daydream
09:54 AM on 09/21/2011
I'm sure Fox will cover it for months... about 14 really.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alison Whitman Phillips
10:02 AM on 09/21/2011
I have been switching back and forth between Fox and MSNBC this morning and I haven't heard ANY coverage of the fact that Suskind has audio of Anita Dunn saying that the Obama White House met the legal requirements for a hostile work place for women.
photo
Jack Daniels Esq
Hold the ice
04:52 AM on 09/21/2011
Is she wearing two rugs or is there something wrong with this here grassy knoll ?
RightRealDeal
Keep The Change
09:51 AM on 09/21/2011
Two
photo
Pelican1983
Eat your peas!
03:43 AM on 09/21/2011
Women hires are totally welcome in the White House! If they can shoot a mean 3-pointer.

C'mon, Obama has issues with women; he's not comfortable around them. Look at how he condescended to Hillary in 2008. It's obvious.
Javalation
Laughing in a Daydream
09:55 AM on 09/21/2011
Hillary? You mean the woman he appointed to be his Secretary of State?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
1000daysoframen
contrarian capitalist liberal conservative
10:53 AM on 09/21/2011
the woman michele allegedly said "do you really want to have to see her every day?" when discussing hillary as VP
photo
Pelican1983
Eat your peas!
09:58 PM on 09/24/2011
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MakersMark
Blame me..I voted for him twice & would again!
11:27 AM on 09/21/2011
What are you talking about?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
H321
03:31 AM on 09/21/2011
"if it weren't for the President".
Six words is all that is needed to see this fluff piece as nothing better than DC gossip.
Nice going. Maybe Suskind couldn't keep track of all his lies since he just handed the Washington Post evidence of his lying. Way to discredit yourself. No one can take him seriously again.
photo
loco48
TRUTH trumps ideology!
05:53 AM on 09/21/2011
When he write a book claiming that women were not treated fairly in the Obama administration and leaves that part of the comment out, he loses credibility with me. Just like FOX (cut and paste). In a book there is no reason to edit out 6 words to imply 'the Obama admin.). And staff in fighting has always been part of any administration. RE; rice vs rumsfeld.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
chiara12
01:13 AM on 09/21/2011
What I think is curious is that he believes this is the "first" look into the White House of this sitting president. Jonathan Alter had a book out this year and whoever was interviewing him today actually pointed out that much of what Suskind "reports" was actually covered in Alters' book.

Suskind may want to downplay things like (strategically) omitting parts of people's statements but that really can change the whole tenor and intent of the statement. That's the kind of stuff that trips Fox up all the time, when they conveniently forget to include the beginning of some sentence and it completely changes the meaning. At the end of the day it's only a small part of the book but it is sort of important and could be indicative of how the rest of the book was treated by Suskind.
12:10 AM on 09/21/2011
Understatement of the year award goes to Stein for this: "Far from a trivial he-said-she-said dispute, the argument over the treatment of women in the Obama administration has larger political implications, illustrating an aspect of the president's managerial skills in an age of hyper-scrutinized politics."

Obama may be defending the women wherever he can; he still is not presiding. Otherwise, "underlings" like Geithner would not defy his directions and still be welcomed staffers.

It increasingly appears that the long-growing fear of a White House with no one in charge is what we have had all along, not just during the previous two administrations.

We have the world's most expensive government and little if any effective governance.

How can anyone vote for anyone seeking office and feel responsible again?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
helgathewitch
aREALhockeymom
11:34 PM on 09/20/2011
How ignorant do all of these people look who clearly have not read this article but are trying to comment on it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KLEENKUT
My micro bio is half full
11:28 PM on 09/20/2011
The con man is the author.
12:21 AM on 09/21/2011
Susking actually does a service. He writes a book about the White House. Describes how it is... and is revealed, in this instance, to have doctored the quote. Now, it remains to be seen if the rest of the book is without substance.

Even when someone lies to you... they are telling you something. Could be their motivation. Or, their lie may reveal their true intent. Unless you are being waterboarded... then you would say anything.
Javalation
Laughing in a Daydream
09:58 AM on 09/21/2011
Dirt and controversy sell... that is all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
helgathewitch
aREALhockeymom
11:28 PM on 09/20/2011
Go Anita,Go Mika. Lets hope every woman reporter gets in on the Suskind misinformation bashing.

This guy is lame
photo
shovelreadyLOL
Mail me $3.00 please
11:11 PM on 09/20/2011
This is no revelation. Like the article states there have been other books claiming the same thing, about how the President and his staff disrespects women. The only difference is the author has got high ranking officials, more than just one by the way, confirming this fact.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
helgathewitch
aREALhockeymom
11:30 PM on 09/20/2011
guess you didn't "really" read the article

you missed the part about her tape recorded statements that prove Suskind changed the meaning of her quote to satisfy himself and people like you
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
1000daysoframen
contrarian capitalist liberal conservative
11:01 AM on 09/21/2011
how does the addition of "if it wasn't for the president" change the implication?

you guys are reaching - and this from a leftie dem. get a grip - i may continue to vote dem but its not with my eyes wide shut.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
derekw007
is farting
12:36 AM on 09/21/2011
RTFA
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
dwillisno1
Learning to Butt Heads Without Being Buttheads
10:56 PM on 09/20/2011
Apparently the teapers and repub critics of the president here are unhappy because the WH is way too Republican Like for them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sarabono
Oldie but Goody
10:51 PM on 09/20/2011
Suskind has Dunn recorded on tape saying exactly --- word for word --- what he wrote in his book about what she said. I listened to it on the evening news. Dunn is the one who is trying to spin the facts, not Suskind.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
helgathewitch
aREALhockeymom
11:15 PM on 09/20/2011
Did you not read what Dunn has just said. Suskind left out 6 very important words that change the complete meaning of what she said!She is not spinning, she is clarifying and showing Suskinds attempt to make the President look bad.
How do you not get that
08:56 AM on 09/21/2011
What do you expect from someone who "in her own words" admits Ma0 is one of her favorite philosophers.
cmagno
"I stand by what I said, whatever it was."
10:50 PM on 09/20/2011
You people should read the flipping article before commenting...

"if it weren't for the president this would be a hostile workplace..."

Let me put it this way, "If it weren't for the fact that so many of my countrymen are ignorant buttheads, good government policy might actually have a chance at passing..."

This is just an attempt to put a ding on the strong hold Obama has with women voters. Not gonna work. We're smarter than you. Plus: Ledbetter act. Plus: Two ladies on the Supreme. Plus: More ladies in the cabinet than any president previous. Plus: He thinks women should have the right to control their own uterus. Plus: All you have, is Michel Bachmann and Sarah Palin.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
helgathewitch
aREALhockeymom
11:42 PM on 09/20/2011
Unbelievable how absolutely unnerving it is that the majority of the commentors have not read the article in full. Or can it be that America is that illiterate
photo
RealityBaseCamp
My micro-bio did not meet someone's guidelines!
10:38 PM on 09/20/2011
So . . . Do you think women in Bush's administration were just happier because of all the free shoulder massages?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
madisonlike60
opinion will not belie the truth
01:08 AM on 09/21/2011
Condi, Harriet? Weren't those the only women?
KnoxScott
whatever
09:13 AM on 09/21/2011
Condoleeza Rice. (2005 to 2009)
Elaine Chao. (2001 to 2009).Gale A. Norton. (2001 to 2006).
Ann M. Veneman
Mary Peters. (2006 to 2009).
Margaret Spellings. (2005 to 2009).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jezreel
Think. Act. Live wisely.
10:31 PM on 09/20/2011
I saw Suskind's quasi interview on Morning Joe this morning and thought that he came across as arrogant and condescending with a penchant for dismissing facts especially when challenged on some of his assertions about the Administration's record of advancing Women's Rights and economic empowerment.

Mika Brzezski, who has written about her own experiences with gender-based inequality challenged Suskind on his failure to interview key top level female advisors to the W.H. or to acknowledge the administration's record of hiring more women in top positions than prior administrations.

Mika suggested, subtly, that Suskind's reporting was not only factually inaccurate but that he may also be a male chauvinist.

I admit that after his performance on the show, I was having second thoughts about buying his book because I could not help but wonder if Suskind wasn't more interested in pushing his personal agenda, whatever that is, than responsibly reporting on the facts of the Obama W.H.

Now that I know that he took Anita Dunn's statement out of context in order to lead the reader to the conclusion that the Administration's approach to women's issues has been underwhelming and tepid, I will definitely not buy the book.