Some research into senior staff gender breakdowns on the 08 Presidentials is revealing:
HUCKABEE–Balanced, slightly favors women
Senior Staff: 4 of 6 (Communications Director, Finance Director, Field Director, Policy Director)
Top 15 paid staff: 8 women, 7 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 8 of 15 (53%)CLINTON–Balanced, but favors women
Senior Staff: 8 of 14 (Campaign Manager, Chief Media Strategist, Traveling Chief of Staff, Policy Director, Director of Operations, 3 well-paid Senior Advisors)
Top 20 paid staff: 12 women, 8 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 85 of 161 (52%)RICHARDSON–Balanced, but favors men
Senior Staff: 4 of 11 (Deputy Campaign Manager, Finance Director, Internet Director, one Senior Finance Advisor)
Top 20 paid staff: 8 women, 12 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 15 of 38 (39%)ROMNEY–Balanced, but favors men
Senior Staff: 4 of 11 (Campaign Manager, Policy Director, Operations Director, Internet Director)
Top 20 paid staff: 7 women, 13 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 51 of 126 (40%)OBAMA–Few women the top
Senior Staff: 3 of 12 (Research Director, COO, Finance Director)
Top 20 paid staff: 5 women, 15 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 67 out of 150 gender identified (45%)EDWARDS–Few women at the top
Senior Staff: 2 of 15 (Research Director, Chief of Staff)
Top 20 paid staff: 7 women, 13 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 34 of 92 (37%)THOMPSON–Few women at the top
Senior Staff: 2 of 9 (Research Director, Finance Director)
Top 20 paid staff: 4 women, 16 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 11 of 37 (30%)GIULIANI–Very imbalanced
Senior Staff: 1 of 10 (Communications Director)
Top 20 identified paid staff: 4 women, 15 men, 1 unknown gender
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 36 of 122 (29.5%) [four unknown gender]
I don’t think that the relative lack of senior female staff necessarily reflects a poor attitude toward women within the campaign, any more than having a lot of them indicates respect (Huckabee manages to launch a full-frontal assault on women’s rights while simultaneously having the highest ratio by this particular metric, so obviously not). However, it is a bit surprising that in this race where womens’ votes mean so much, and both Edwards and Obama trying to stake out that territory so hard, that there is not a stronger female presence in campaign leadership. I mean, really. If there are few people in a decision making capacity who understand the experience they are trying to appeal to, is it any surprise Hillary Clinton is handing them their asses with women?
Not that there isn’t room for improvement on that front as well…
(photo by straubl.eu)
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Do you suppose Judy Giuliani had a role in selecting her husband’s campaign staff?
Disappointed with Edwards.
eCAHNomics @ 2
Edwards has Elizabeth, and he may feel “covered”. I don’t think he is… just saying.
GIULIANI–Very imbalanced
Senior Staff: 1 of 10 (Communications Director)
Top 20 identified paid staff: 4 women, 15 men, 1
unknowngenderCross-dresserAll paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 36 of 122 (29.5%) [four unknown gender]
eCAHNomics @ 2
That’s the one that surprises me.
JPL @ 5
Yeah, I have to say — Obama, no surprise.
newtonusr @ 3
You’d think she’s be able to bend his ear a little more on that regard. Then again, it is better that Donna Brazile stay away(and Bob Shrum too!!!).
Im sure that giuliani is hampered by the fact there are so few female mafiosas.
newtonusr @ 3
She’s awesome, for sure, but diversity has to be part of the core operating system, not confined to a particularly outstanding representative.
I think Elizabeth is John’s best feature. Nothing about Dodd. Edwards right now is my top favorite and Dodd is running neck and neck with his upholding the Constitution issues. I still believe that all people who say they will vote for a woman or a black, at least half will do the opposite once they get in the voting booth. So, don’t believe the polls.
Joe Klein’s conscience @ 7
I’m not making excuses for Edwards here, but he allowed himself to be bullied by Donahue and I wouldn’t count on women staffers running into the breach.
I might just have to go read a book. Next up on BOOK-TV, which I am listening to while commmenting, is Tom Tancredo. Time to hit the mute button. See y’all later.
eCAHNomics @ 12
You mean he can read?
OT
This from the BBC may become the major issue in the months ahead – what is your dollar doing this week?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7063733.stm
Jane Hamsher @ 13
He’s got the reading part down…it’s the writing part he’s still working on.
JPL @ 1
Ding!
RBG @ 15
I think Tom T is a modern day miracle. Someone so deviod of intellectual gifts and he walks, talks, breathes on his own…
Bonnie @ 10
this is how i’m leaning too. for me, it’s been Edwards vote to lose. Sen Dodd did a lot towards advancing his position in my mind by the choices he made in the last week or so, although i must admit i’ve been appreciating him a lot more since his first stint here with us at FDL. (too bad MSM doesn’t give him much attention …).
i’ve been starved for someone to take the positionDodd took on the senate floor late last week regarding FISA. i love the way he threaded many of this administrations screw-ups into his position statement … left everyone understanding it wasn’t just about FISA.
i wish Dodd’s senior staff data were included in this run down. i’m also disappointed in how Edwards stacks up on this front.
What fraction of the ‘talent pool’ for these staff positions is women? If it’s pretty small, how much extra work is involved in finding a woman instead of a man?
I’m just thinking of when I was hiring people, and as the talent pool shrank, it was just harder and harder to get good people, never mind make decisions on characteristics other than ability. Finally had to settle for people without ability, and that was a disaster …
behindthefall @ 19
Does anyone know what percentage of men to women are actually in this type of work?
This is interesting, but assume that Obama or any other male candidate had a staff that was comprised 100% of women, would that trump the fact that Hillary is the first female candidate with a legitimate shot at becoming President?
RBG @ 15
That, and the “plays well with others” part.
Twain @ 20
That’s a great question. Am trying to think of some good ways to get to some answers. Anybody got ideas of how best to search for that info?
RBG @ 23
It’s not exactly the kind of stuff you find lots of stats on, but there are surely folks around with a good sense about it. The people at Emily’s List, for instance, might have some educated guesses, if not solid info.
Diane Benson for US Congress staff:
Four women, three men. We all get paid the same. That is, we work for free.
Consider the important women in several prior democratic campaigns:
Susan Estrich
Donna Brazile
Mary Beth Cahill
Lamerama! The women have shown an ability to match men in terms of ineptitude, weakness, insider beltway stupidity, and foolish elitism.
Twain @ 20
I think there are probably a whole lot more women available to do this type of work than are showing up here. They just need to be given the opportunity.
And FWIW, with Edwards, don’t forget that he would have most likely had at least a couple of other women in the mix if the RWNM hadn’t gone bat sh*t crazy about Amanda and Melissa.
Ed*ard Teller @ 25
I had a feeling you were priceless, ET. Glad to get that confirmed.
Twain @ 20
I used to get these stats for EEO-1 reports for corporations to file when I worked for a statistician. There are Census figures available by sex and race for various professions. You can use the general category of “Professional” which is about 7% women. Then they are narrowed down by what the person put on their income tax return.
Peterr @ 28
If I had more money to give to her campaign and to many of the candidates supported by this site, I would gladly do it. Even time has been in short supply lately.
It’s an interesting aspect, and I’d like to hear Edward’s response. He knows better.
If Hillary’s policies were progressive, I’d vote for her in a shot. She’s tough and competent, we are overdue for a lady president, and it’d drive the wingnuts apeshit.
But since she’s still in the corporate tank, still enabling Bush war-wise, and still not standing up for the Constitution (I’m guessing she’d like to exercise some of the power Bush grabbed), why would I vote for her in the primary?
There are only a handful of progressives with a record to prove it worthy of our vote.
Only two are running, and Hillary ain’t one of them.
diogenes @ 31
That’s no lady. . .
Sarah Brewer is the associate director of the Women and Politics Institute at the American University School of Public Affairs. She’s got an interesting article entitled “Women Political Consultants: Who Are They, Where Are They? – Statistical Data Included.” The whole article is here, and (as you might imagine) it is hardly a gender balanced occupation.
Note that this study looked at 1998 House, Senate, and Gubernatorial races. Is the pool of women consultants smaller than the pool of men? Sure. But if a serious presidential candidate wanted to get strong women as senior staff members, they could probably have the pick of that smaller pool.
Jane -
I thought that you might find this (via Raw Story) of interest: Galante Donors Gave To Senator
Drive by …
Hey fellow Cali’s ;-)
My friend Bill and I’ll be live blogging the Asia Pacific Islander Education and Candidates Forum in a few mins if you want to check it out
Find it on the main page
L8r
The campaign staff diversity issue is getting some play in Eastern Iowa.
I wonder what effect that has in the build up to the caucuses.
FYI, Book Salon is upstairs
The Book Salon with Alex Steffen of “Worldchanging” is up.
(It looks like a rather slow Sunday afternoon . . . )
On with Sam Seder, Atrios and Matt Yglesias…right now…fyi…
john in sacramento @ 35
Change of plan …
Actually I’ll be at calitics here
My friend Bill will be here
What does this mean in the Ghouliani campaign?
“[four unknown gender]”
I guess it fits as the Ghoul himself is an unknown species!
It’s strange how the campaigns can sometimes seem completely silent and out of touch.
I’ve been arguing for Edwards and have seen public forums and tv interviews, but then there are stretches of time when I know they’re busy bees, but it’s not seen ‘out here in the world’.
Likewise, the Clinton campaign has seemed like a far away planet we occasionally hear about, but there is no inkling of what’s going on with it.
Mostly the Obama supporters and Clinton supporters seem like large tumors which you don’t notice or sense are there, but you can see indications of their size.
I guess it’s being here on fdl amongst so many Progressives that I feel a bit more connected to the Movement.
I often wonder how to best reach Obama supporters to argue they should switch candidates and how to find Clinton supporters to talk to about their reason(s) for supporting Hill. Do these people exist? Polls appear to indicate it, but is there sign of life somewhere?
I’ve seen some of the Iowa public speeches and Obama draws large crowds, but I have to wonder if C-SPAN is selectively presenting those forums where ‘their candidate’ has the best show. This kind of skewing isn’t any more devious than the nasty questioning Timmeh always manages to bring to his interviews with Dem candidates. Funny how he was so friendly to William Safire, who has nothing good to offer America.
How does one reach people? It must be a question that inhabits the dreams and thoughts of campaign managers everywhere.
If you look at the breakdown by race as opposed to gender, the Democrats all do much better than even the best Republicans.
Oh, and just because someone’s female, or not white, doesn’t mean they can’t be coopted. (Example: Condi Rice.)
I doubt very seriously that Hillary Clinton’s support, and not-very-discrimination support, at that, from a lot of women, has anything to do with how many women Edwards or Obama have on their staffs.
I have two women friends who are supporting her.
Rabidly.
They both qualify as progressives.
I asked them:
“Do you think that invading Iraq was a mistake?”
They both instantly and (ahem!) unequivocally, said “yes!”.
“Well, Hillary doesn’t think so.”
They said: “She really does, but she just can’t say it.” ( :o) )
Which astounding revelation confirmed me in believing that a lot of her support is evidence of sexism in reverse.
That is, some of us on here who’ve been outspoken in our belief that because of her stance on Iraq and some other issues, she doesn’t deserve the nomination, and that giving it to her will be a disaster for progressives, (and for democrats in general), those people have sometimes been hit with the “sexist pig” stick for saying it.
At which accusation it’s worth pointing out that if she were a man, with her record of supporting bush on Iraq, and her support for a turkey like Lieberman, and with her refusal to eat that support, especially her vote to authorize, we would be nearly unanimous in putting her on the yellow-dog-democrat shitlist. And rightly so.
Let’s do one thing; change her gender, and the posts defending her on here would instantly disappear.
I understand the feelings of frustration from women about being unfairly kept from full access to power and influence in politics. I share them; and with a daughter and three granddaughters, I very much want that to end, but we have, for example, righteously pilloried Pelosi, which, she richly deserves, in my opinion, but the women supporting Clinton, for some reason, won’t hold Clinton anything LIKE those standards, and they are going to have to decide if their desire to overcome the discrimination against a woman being nominated for president, and for a women BECOMING president, trumps the reality that Hillary Clinton is the one candidate who can turn the excellent chance for a political tsunami for our side, into another cliff-hanger of a race, for the GOP to steal.
And maybe, not even that close. She will have “coattails” which will probably cost us the tenuous control of the Senate we have now, and possibly even the House.
And, magically, she will make every one of the republican dwarves into presidential “timber”.
Conversely, in this election, if we nominate Edwards or Obama or practically any other democrat, we the turn the republican convention into a selection process for a sacrificial goat.
Whether she’s posing, or whether she’s sincere, she is, republican lite beer.
For me, the most dismaying thing about her posture and her political stances, was the stupidity of she and her staff believing that “triangulating” to the right would attract enough republican votes to compensate for the damage to her natural base, we progressives. It was the sheerest idiocy.
A week or so ago, her campaign released an “internal poll” showing that substantial numbers of women GOP voters would support her.
It was either ignored, or got hoots of derision. And it deserved that.
That is simply not going to happen. They hate her as much as the male republicans hate her. Maybe more.
Iowa is shaping up to be the most important presidential primary in a long, long, time. Maybe since the civil war. If Clinton wins it, it’s going to be hard to stop her, with so much of our right-leaning media already hopefully annointing her, so the GOP will have her to run against.
It’s why assholes like Chris Matthews are talking about a Clinton-Giuliani race with the hopeful pleasure of describing an “exciting matchup” for the BCS college football championship.
“It’ll be fun, and no biggie, either way.”
Horseshit, Chris. You KNOW what you and so much of the MSM are asking for: you KNOW that the only chance the repubs have to avoid an asskicking of historic proportions, is if the democrats nominate Hillary.
And we, including our democratic women, should know it, too.
If anyone doubts how badly the rethugs want Hillary Clinton to run against, check this out by Digby.
At this point, they are the sharpest, most important three paragraphs I’ve seen about the election of 2008.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com…..ow-if.html
Tanbark Abides! *G*
And Digby’s thread you linked to is spot phreakin on. Some good comments, too . . . Jill Bains, for one.
How OTHERS who comment there come to some of their conclusions baffles the crap outta me, though. Some I swear have passed themselves off as progressive activists and event organizers.
Wierd, this morphing thing . . . *G*
I’m not a big Hillary fan, but her ability to run a liberal “dog whistle” is an impressive development. The Thugs have been able to try to sound moderate, for example look at the speakers at the 2004 convention, yet reassure their nuts that they will act thuggish in power. The Dems have not been able to do that – partially because they always backstab their base at the first opportunity. But Hillary has convinced a chunk of Democratic voters that she will run right and govern center. If she can do that and pull in disgusted thugs, she has a path to power. What she will do with it, I dunno.
Rootless; thanks for the thoughtful post, but I don’t think “a chunk of democratic voters” will be enough to get her into the white house.
The repubs, and the independents, and even some conservative democrats, will knee-walk to the polls to vote against her.
Digby nailed…I mean, just NAILED it.
What is disappointing to me is the continuing minimalization of Dennis Kuncinich -even here in this breakdown by a progressive blog – why no mention of him?
I’m guessing this is how Huckabee pulls off what he often pulls off: holding hard-right positions on a number of issues, but still coming off as humane and decent, at least compared to most Republicans. He no doubt has enough women around him to help him tone it down.
Tanbark @ 45
How weak is a candidate that can’t say what they think?
Do women really want a ‘leader’ that weak?
Would any of them vote for a man who acted the same way as Hillary?
Even worse, would any of them date a man who behaved that way?
I certainly hope Hillary’s supporters consider the hangover or the buyer’s remorse they’re gonna feel if they elect Hillary and she doesn’t do the things they expect. Hillary can easily say she never promised those things.
It’s the idea of offering an empty vessel and letting the electorate imagine what she is gonna do. That’s not a very sure way of getting what you want.
Maybe they’re so mesmerized by having a woman president that they can’t imagine she would be a bad president or that she would lie to them. I hope they wake up and at least examine her record and statements.
Ed*ard Teller @ 25
Ed Teller! That picture of “Teamster Dianne” is really something that you should use in a guerilla-marketing campaign. It should be stuck up in every gin joint and juke hall along the Richardson Highway. Also hit the cafes and greasy-spoons. Modified of course with something like “She’s Going to Washington…and gonna raise hell!” “Benson for Congress”.
Black & White prints are cheap…and you could even make a glossy version of it and sell those to make money for the campaign (maybe put a little line about where glossys can be obtained on the cheaper B&W version).
We’re not electing based on gender or senior staff…. or are we so desperate to “WIN” that we’ll settle for this? That’s not “winning” anything. Its not a football game.
I’m desperate. I think another thug victory will seal the deal for a fascist state.
Rootless; I think you’re right.
This one is for all the marbles, for a long time to come. And bush and a lot of the people who inflicted him on us know it. They are in full-on panic mode, and underneath junior’s veneer of smug arrogance, I think he knows that the shit is coming down.
As I’ve been saying, when bush and the warpimps pulled the trigger on Iraq, they collectively knocked up Rosemary, and now her fast-growing baby is looking like the nearly-mature “Alien”, with horns and a tail, and he is going to negatively involve SOME political party in the food chain.
It’s a question of whether the democrats will let the collective “Dads” get out of town, and then turn around and stick THEM with the child support, or if they AND THE CANDIDATES will have the courage and the smarts to hold press conferences, early and often to insist, on behalf of the american people, on that all-important DNA check. :o)
Gonna be a HELL of a year.
Really? Desperation will give us Hillary Clinton, who is in NO way qualified for this. She’s an actor in the pubbie script. We are NOT desperate and by acting desperate will give us another loss, another thug, or another thug in Hillary. There’s no differenct in her plans and bush’s.
She’s not the “winner” you all so want so badly. Thanks, I’d rather have the MOST qualified for the job regardless of gender or race. A person whose words match up with their actions in a consistant fashion. One who isn’t into the pubbie top-down parental speak and selling out of our citizens for benefit of busine$$.
Hillary clinton will insure the rethugs of an easy win (and a slew of easy sticks to beat us with on the way) or she will continue their programs….. either way its “4 more years”.
All should realize they are being marketed to here. Look past that. We are not desperate. We have it in the bag if only someone would stand up there and tell the truth and take action instead of trying to play the pubbies’ petty game and beat them at it. We are better than this. That person won’t be “winning”, they’ll be LEADING….. and they wouldn’t have to pander to any group because all those groupings would fall away under the weight of the truth.
As the Democratic leadership stands right now, it is already lost. They are framing this under republican rules… that’s not taking your power back, its getting permission from the pubs. Until they stand up and do the right thing, it is lost. Thank you Democratic party, The Nancy Congress, and most of all to the most selfish unqualified woman in history, the wife of bill clinton. gack.