If we wanted a campaign about issues, we would nominate Hillary.

With charts.

The average pay for women who worked on the Senate staff of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of Illinois was at least $6,000 below the average pay for men working on Obama's staff. This held true whether the average pay was calculated for all of Obama's staff, only for his non-intern staff, or only for his staff making more than $23,000 on an annual basis. Obama employed slightly more males than females.

Now, a bill to fix this equal pay Catch-22 is pending in Congress -- and the Ledbetter case has emerged as a key piece of Obama's effort to woo women. In particular, working women, less-educated women, older women. Women who voted for a certain woman and haven't come around to the guy who defeated her.

And

Hence, the appeal of Ledbetter as a campaign issue. For all the fuss over a roll-call vote for Hillary Clinton at the convention, worrying about such logistics was to some extent a luxury indulged in by women who don't have to worry about how to afford the next tank of gas. Ledbetter, by contrast, puts a human face on a pocketbook issue. "This is an issue that really demonstrates you're in touch with women's lives," Lake said.

And

The Obama campaign has asked Clinton to talk about Ledbetter when she campaigns for him. Obama, who didn't focus much on the issue during the primary campaign, hosted a meeting Monday on pay equity; the campaign released a memo contrasting Obama and McCain on women's issues. As I sat down to write this column, an e-mail arrived from the Democratic convention announcing that Ledbetter would be speaking there. Which probably puts her off the veep list, but you never know.

Now, there were 44 co-sponsors of the bill Ted Kennedy introduced, and 14 of those co-sponsors signed on the same day: 7/20/07.  Among them were Obama, Clinton, Leahy, Dodd, and even Arlen Specter.

Note that this bill and the issue it addresses have not been something Obama has been passionate about, or worked hard for in either the primary or the general election, and Marcus, probably inadvertently, reveals it as nothing so much as a craven tool with which to lure the demographic with which Obama lags.  It's just like health care, where there simply does not seem to be an actual interest in doing anything about it - you know, working on it - it's nothing more than an empty talking point.

And this is why so many of us see Obama as lacking; he fails to put his money where his mouth is over and over again, and I , at least, have no reason to expect that he will work these issues should he be elected.

BTD and I have discussed in the past the fact that Democrats get clobbered time and time again on the issue of judges because we're just so awful at framing a coherent message.  Let's contrast how the two sides handle things.

A year or two ago, Justice Kennedy made a passing reference to international law in a decision, and the entire right wing went berserk.  All the talk shows went on and on about it.  Millions of emails and direct mailers went out talking about how outrageous this was, and how we need to retake the Supreme Court before they make us all submit to their liberal vision of a one-world government, blah blah blah.

And yet, 90% of the comments just devolve into the usual Hillary vs Obama stuff.  Barely a mention of McCain and Republicans.