Uh-Oh, I Blinked and Missed Obama's Mention of Muslim Women

To Jill and Bonnie, who felt that Obama was miserly with his words in Cairo today only when it came to talking plainly about women in the Muslim world, I say: Me, three!

I set my alarm early so I could hear the president's speech in real time, and mostly found his rhetoric bracing. (Or was that the cappuccino?) He wasn't shy about coolly ticking off the facts of life on the very real threat of Islamic extremism, or about pushing Hamas to give up violence and recognize Isreal, or about decrying Arab anti-Semitism: "Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecendented Holocaust. Tomorrow I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant and hateful.''

Neither did Obama shrink from freely acknowledging the Muslim branch of his family tree -- which while hardly brave in front of today's audience, will certainly be twisted and used against him in his next campaign.

So when he got all the way to the end of this bold holding forth with barely a mention of women's rights, I thought oh, I must have taken a mental vacay for a minute there and missed it, the way I sometimes do in church. But no, turns out he really did talk for 57 minutes...and devote all of three short paragraphs to women's rights:

"I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.'' Now, as Jill pointed out, the issue isn't Western insistence that Muslim women shed their burqas, it's the intimidation of, violence against, and informing on women who don't choose to wear them that we have a problem with.

"Now let me be clear,'' he said, as he often does. "Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.'' Again, what tripe; him besting Hillary Clinton at the ballot box in a squeaker is not really on a par with women who are not free to decide their own destiny, or even how to spend the day.

More weak tea: "Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.''

To be fair, I remember when poor Karen Hughes bumbled her way through her "my most important title is mom'' listening tour of the Muslim world in 2005, as Bush's ambassador -- and was criticized for being too blunt about the situation of women. She shocked Saudi leaders by blurting out her view that women should be able to drive and "fully participate in society,'' and the trip was for a variety of reasons considered such a flop that she worked behind the scenes for the remainder of her 2 ½ years in the job.

Is this another one of those situations where there may in fact be no way to reconcile two such different world views? (Yes, George Tiller is still on my mind.) Does sugarcoating show respect or condescension? Realistically, maybe there was no way to be both polite and forthright on this matter. Still, isn't the situation of so many women in the Muslim world "baseless, ignorant and hateful''? I'm sorry he didn't feel he could challenge his audience as straighforwardly as he did on religious freedom and anti-Semitism; why was that?