For a Better Commute. For a Better Prince William County.

First Lady Rallies Voters to Obama’s Vision

First Lady Michelle Obama addresses a crowd of more than 400 people at VFW Post 1503 in Dale City, telling supporters her husband, President Barack Obama, needs four more years to finish the work he’s started. (Mary Davidson/


DALE CITY, Va. – The parking lot of the Veteran’s of Foreign Wars building on Minnieville Road was full hours before First Lady Michelle Obama was slated to appear. So was the parking lot of the Staples Mill Shopping Center down the street. Nearby neighborhood roads were lined with cars as people walked some distance to see the first lady speak on behalf of her husband’s campaign.

According to Prince William County Fire Marshal Matt Greenfield, 475 people filled the small VFW building for the event. Because the facility could only hold a limited number of people, many there were volunteers for the Barack Obama reelection campaign. So the first lady’s message wasn’t so much “vote for Obama,” nor was the visit about raising funds from the audience. Instead, it was more of an urging to register voters, to get friends, family and neighbors involved in the campaign and to tell others about Obama’s “vision.”

PLUS: First Lady makes a surprise stop in Occoquan 

Obama told the crowd that the president needed four more years to finish the work he started and to achieve some of the goals that he had not yet accomplished, such as equal pay for women. She listed a few of the president’s accomplishments so far, like helping the auto industry get back on its feet, the benefits of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, the return of troops from Iraq and the elimination of Osama Bin Laden.

“Because of [health care] reform, insurance companies will have to cover preventative care,” she told the crowd, throwing in other details, for instance that senior citizens on average can save about $600 a year on their prescriptions because of the reform.

Obama reminded the audience that one of the first bills her husband signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. “Women’s success in this economy is the key to families’ success.”

A follow-up to that law, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is supported by the president, has been blocked by senate Republicans.

The first lady said all of the accomplishments her husband has achieved so far are on the line with this election. “We cannot afford to turn back now. We have to keep moving forward.”

She said that this election could be a close one and may come down to only a few thousand votes. (The Bush-Gore race of 2000 may have come to mind for a few people listening.)

Kristine Hatton, a county resident and student at Northern Virginia Community College, said what resonated with her was Michelle Obama’s remarks about women getting equal pay.

Gail McDonald traveled from Loudoun County to be present. She’s the Ashburn team leader of Loudoun County’s Obama reelection campaign. For her, the first lady’s remarks about healthcare resonated the most.

“I have a son who has diabetes,” she said. Not restricting her son’s health care options because of this pre-existing condition is of key importance to her.

 Michael Futrell, co-chair of the Young Democrats of Prince William County, said: “People need to realize you can’t look at this as a snapshot, you’ve got to look at this as a motion picture. You’ve got to make sure you see the whole thing. And when [Michelle Obama noted] everything [Barack Obama] was able to accomplish… it’s astounding. It reminded us of what we need to be able to do to help him. We need to make sure we don’t repeat [the past] where we got him elected but we didn’t give him any assistance or any help.”

“The thing that really jumped out to me was, not just let’s make sure we get him elected, but the importance of getting Tim Kaine and getting Gerry Connolly elected,” Futrell added.


Send news and photos to Potomac Local
  • MaleMatters

    Here’s why the Republicans blocked the bill:

    The “proof” cited to show there is wage discrimination against female workers is “women earn 77 cents to men’s dollar in the same jobs.”

    Contrary to what pay-equity advocates say, though, “women’s 77 cents to men’s dollar” does NOT mean women are paid less than men in the same jobs. Nor does it mean, even more incredibly in the vein of “men are stronger than women” (which means to many that every man is stronger than every woman), that every woman earns 23% less than every man, perhaps leading some of the more benighted and the blinkered ideological to believe Diane Sawyer of ABC News earns less than the young man walking up and down the street wearing a “Pizzas $5” sign.

    Women’s 77 cents to men’s dollar is arrived at by comparing the sexes’ median incomes: women’s median is 77 percent of men’s. In 2009, the median income of full-time, year-round workers was $47,127 for men, compared to $36,278 for women or 77 percent of men’s median.

    Median income is defined thusly: 50% of workers earn above the figure and 50% below. That means that a lot of female workers in the higher ranges of women’s median make more money than a lot of male workers in the lower ranges of men’s median.

    “Women’s 77 cents to men’s dollar” doesn’t account for the number of hours worked each week, experience, seniority, training, education or even the job description itself. It compares all women to all men, not people in the same job with the same experience. So the salary of a 60-year-old male computer engineer with 30 years at his company is weighed against that of a young first-year female teacher. Also, men are much more likely than women to work two jobs; hence, more often than women, a man earning $50,000 from his two jobs is weighed against a women earning $25,000 from her one job, so that he appears to be unfairly earning twice as much as she.

    Over the decades, strategically ignoring the true meaning of “women’s 77 cents to men’s dollar” has been less than productive:

    No law yet has closed the gender wage gap — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap –, not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act…. Nor will a “paycheck fairness” law work.

    That’s because women’s pay-equity advocates, who always insist one more law is needed, continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:

    Despite the 40-year-old demand for women’s equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of “The Secrets of Happily Married Women,” stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. “In the past few years,” he says in a CNN report at, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.”

    (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier….” at Consider also: “a 2007 Pew Study on working mothers revealed that 60 percent of full-time working moms would rather be part-time — up from 48 percent 15 years ago” at
    If indeed women are staying at home at a higher rate, perhaps it’s because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs — so why bother working if they’re going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman.
    As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Because they’re supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home.

    The implication of this is probably obvious to 10-year-olds but seems incomprehensible to or is ignored by feminists and the liberal media: If millions of wives are able to accept NO wages, millions of other wives, whose husbands’ incomes range from moderate to high, are able to:

    -accept low wages
    -refuse overtime and promotions
    -choose jobs based on interest first, wages second — the reverse of what men tend to do
    -take more unpaid days off
    -avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (
    -work part-time instead of full-time

    All of which lower women’s median pay.

    Women are able to make these choices because they are supported — or if unmarried anticipate being supported — by a husband who must earn more than if he’d chosen never to marry. (Still, even many men who shun marriage, unlike their female counterparts, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap: as a group they pass up jobs that interest them for ones that pay well. If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.

    Points to ponder:

    Why would “greedy, profit-obsessed” employers, many of whom where possible hire illegal immigrants for their cheap labor, pay men more than women for the same work? If employers could get away with that, they would not hire one man, ever.

    The power in money is not in earning it (there is only responsibility, sweat, and stress in earning money). The power in money is in SPENDING it. And, Warren Farrell says in “The Myth of Male Power” at, “Women control consumer spending by a wide margin in virtually every consumer category.” (Women’s control over spending, adds Farrell, gives women control over TV programs.)

    “There were fewer cases charging sex-based wage discrimination last year than the year before the [Ledbetter law] was signed, and the wage gap was wider in 2010 than it was in 2007…. The bottom line: In Obama’s first three years in office, the EEOC filed six gender-based wage discrimination lawsuits — down from 18 during Bush’s second term.” -BusinessWeek, May 13, 2012, at” and at

    The Fact Checker at the liberal Washington Post gives President Obama “One Pinocchio” for lying about the gender wage gap.

    Excerpted from “Will the Ledbetter Act Help Women?” at 

  • D C

    The last thing our country needs is for Obama to have 4 more years to destroy it.

A word from our sponsors...