Glenn Harlan Reynolds

The "War On Women" theme was a key component of Barack Obama's 2012 campaign. And since politicians tend to repeat what works, the Democrats are pushing the same theme again for 2014 — and, no doubt, as preparation for a Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 where all opposition will be treated as evidence of sexism. But have they taken it too far? Just maybe.

One clue is that even the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, generally a reliable Democratic ally, isn't buying the Democrats' "revolting equal-pay demagoguery." Marcus writes:

The level of hyperbole — actually, of demagoguery — that Democrats have engaged in here is revolting. It's entirely understandable, of course: The Senate is up for grabs. Women account for a majority of voters. They tend to favor Democrats. To the extent that women — and in particular, single women — can be motivated to turn out in a midterm election, waving the bloody shirt of unequal pay is smart politics. Fairness is another matter. Since President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, it has been illegal for employers to pay women less than men for the same work.

The problem is that comparing what all men and all women earn is deceptive. Men tend to choose more jobs that require long hours, or that are dangerous — hence the much higher rate of vocational death among men than women — but that also pay more. Women tend to prefer jobs that offer flexible or shorter hours, and clean indoor conditions.

Indeed, as Amy Otto notes, a recent puff piece on Jay Carney in The Washingtonian, though largely mocked for its photoshop errors, inadvertently revealed the gender-gap cause: Carney's wife, high-profile journalist Claire Shipman, "works part-time now for ABC News, something she's done for five years, which has given her more flexibility to write and hang out with her children. Flexibility, she says, is what most working mothers really want."

That's probably right, but part-time jobs that give you flexibility to hang out with your kids generally don't pay as much as hard-charging jobs that keep you at the office all night. And would it be fair to the office all-nighters if they did?

Then it turned out that the Obama White House itself pays women workers less than men. White House Press Secretary Carney didn't mention his wife's choices, but did argue that the number was misleading because women held different jobs. Well, yes. Federal law says you have to pay people the same for the same work; it doesn't say you have to pay secretaries the same as press secretaries. This is true both in the White House, and in the private businesses that the White House was attacking.

But that's just the beginning. As the Washington Postreported, many vulnerable Democrats have a pay gap, too:

Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado pays women workers 85 cents for every dollar he pays men.

Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana pays women 88 cents on the dollar.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia pays women 75 cents for every dollar he pays a man.

Rep. Gary Peters pays women 67 cents for every dollar that a man makes.

And Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska pays women in his office 82 cents for every dollar that a man makes.

If I were the GOP, I'd start running attack ads in these legislators' home states, quoting President Obama and asking why these Democrats hate women. It just might work — and it would certainly drive home a useful lesson about bogus statistics. Which President Obama — who is now even attacking unequal dry cleaning bills — could use.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, is the author ofThe New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including ourBoard of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the opinion front page or follow us on twitter @USATopinion or Fac ebook.