>>Oh yeah, this topic will make a difference of world affairs. How is this important in which candidate to select ?
>
>World affairs is not the only criterion by which we choose a candidate.
>
>Making the assumption that the basic accusation (Obama pays women less for equivalent work) is accurate, you would not find that a relevant piece of information in determining which candidate to support? It may not be the final determinant but "Does he practice what he preaches?" is absolutely an important consideration.

That is assuming that the consciously pays them less and discriminates them, which I find hard to believe. It is most likely any thrid person is responsible for the wages, not him. Even up here women often have a lower wage than men in the same position, but it often does not really have something to do with deliberate sex discrimination. For example, many women up here, work part time or stopped working during the years that the kids are young. This puts them into a less favourable position to ask for or get a raise. In most branches the number of years and whether your full time or part time employed are the best indicators for the difference in wages.

To me this is one of the stupiest reasons to choose one candiate over another and another example of very poor journalism.