And for the women?

[Anonymous]

Having women and minorities in positions of power is far more than "ticking the boxes." It provides invaluable examples for our children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having women and minorities in positions of power is far more than "ticking the boxes." It provides invaluable examples for our children.

only if they are the most qualified people for the job! otherwise, they will either fail or be propped up and worked around and it will be clear that they are only there BECAUSE they are women and minorities. if that's the case, they won't be examples of any positive value.

[Anonymous]

I think McCain's decision regarding making Palin his VP candidate is the perfect example of the problem with choosing a candidate based on gender and NOT AT ALL on qualifications. In fact, his choice did less for women's rights than most MEN he could have chosen for VP. I would have been embarrassed to have her represent me. Do I think it would be wonderful to have more women in high-ranking positions, yes, of course! But, would I want a woman representing me just because she was a woman, and not because of her qualifications, no. That would set us BACK many years. I am saddened by the fact that the OP must take the joy out of this momentous occasion (which indicates that American is FINALLY seeing beyond color lines, which suggests that we may soon see beyond gender lines, as well) and ASSUME that Obama is now going to "sell out". And, yes, I used that term very intentionally.

[Anonymous]

All this talk of "best qualified candidate, not affirmative action" assumes there are no qualified women. That is nonsense. There may be no qualified women who have spend 2 years kissing Obama's tush, there may be no qualified women playing golf with David Axelrod (would you?) but there are qualified women.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone in this discussion ever hired someone? There is no such thing as the "most qualified" person when hiring. Everyone has a set of strengths and weaknesses. The Administration will be weighing a variety of factors from a huge pool of fully qualified candidates when making appointments, one of which should be gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Other posters subsequently criticized Obama for not having enough prominent supporters who are women. Someone mentioned Caroline Kennedy and that she would get a post; a poster retorted that she would get an ambassador spot and not a Cabinet position. Her likely appointment will be Ambassador to the United Nations. Like the Chief of Staff, even if this isn't technically a Cabinet position, it's extremely high-level, high-profile, and critical.

What exactly would qualify Caroline Kennedy to be UN Ambassador? Other than the facts that she's JFK's daughter and was a passionate Obama supporter, that is. I don't want to just see women appointees; I want them to be qualified women. Names like John Kerry for Secretary of State (he's lobbying hard for it) and Larry Summers for treasury (yuck!) are not only disappointing, but in Summers' case, offensive to many women (not to mention to environmentalists and many African Americans).

I do agree that we need to wait and see what Obama does. However, Rahm Emanuel is, in some ways, a disappointing choice -- certainly not a figure who fits into the "no drama" playbook that has guided Obama to this point. As for those wondering if his selection of white men to lead his campaign reflects the nature of the Democratic political operative field, no, it doesn't at all. They did do a great job in running his campaign. But Axelrod joining the White House staff? Hmm. It will be very interesting to see what happens from this point. Today's WaPo story talks about the need for cabinet appointments to be reassuring. Somehow I don't think Larry Summers would be a reassuring figure as Treasury Secretary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone in this discussion ever hired someone? There is no such thing as the "most qualified" person when hiring. Everyone has a set of strengths and weaknesses. The Administration will be weighing a variety of factors from a huge pool of fully qualified candidates when making appointments, one of which should be gender.

Especially in this case, where the political effect of appointments will be measured. Even if the "best" choice, by whatever criteria are used, for each position happened to be a man, the overall effect of having no women in important positions would be politically devastating. I can't believe Obama, Axelrod, Rahm, etc, would be that clumsy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Other posters subsequently criticized Obama for not having enough prominent supporters who are women. Someone mentioned Caroline Kennedy and that she would get a post; a poster retorted that she would get an ambassador spot and not a Cabinet position. Her likely appointment will be Ambassador to the United Nations. Like the Chief of Staff, even if this isn't technically a Cabinet position, it's extremely high-level, high-profile, and critical.

What exactly would qualify Caroline Kennedy to be UN Ambassador? Other than the facts that she's JFK's daughter and was a passionate Obama supporter, that is. I don't want to just see women appointees; I want them to be qualified women. Names like John Kerry for Secretary of State (he's lobbying hard for it) and Larry Summers for treasury (yuck!) are not only disappointing, but in Summers' case, offensive to many women (not to mention to environmentalists and many African Americans).

I'm totally with you on on Summers but why is Kerry disappointing? Great though Susan Rice is, I don't think she's ready for Sec State. Not sure what other woman would fit the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone in this discussion ever hired someone? There is no such thing as the "most qualified" person when hiring. Everyone has a set of strengths and weaknesses. The Administration will be weighing a variety of factors from a huge pool of fully qualified candidates when making appointments, one of which should be gender.

Especially in this case, where the political effect of appointments will be measured. Even if the "best" choice, by whatever criteria are used, for each position happened to be a man, the overall effect of having no women in important positions would be politically devastating. I can't believe Obama, Axelrod, Rahm, etc, would be that clumsy.

Exactly, Obama and his inner circle are smart enough to realize that an all white male cabinet will be political suicide - it is not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

His transition team has many high-profile women who were instrumental in his campaign, and they will be crafting important policies and finding and vetting important hires. Cassandra Butts, Lisa Brown, Melody Barnes, Stephanie Cutter, to name just a few at the top.

Please remember that many of these top-level appointments will go through an excruciating vetting process and then face Senate confirmation proceedings. Yes, it is a friendly Senate right now, but with only three moderate Republicans remaining in the Caucus-- Collins, Snowe, and Specter-- they will be rabid to knock out anyone he puts forward and cause Obama embarrassment, break his rhythm.

Yes, there are qualified women for some of the jobs. But he also needs to staff Treasury and Defense first, and because of the slow trickle of women to the top of the corporate ladder and the absolute bar on women serving in combat, it's unlikely that a woman will be the top choice for either of those roles. I can't think of any woman who would be as good as John Corzine for Treasury. He is considering many top-notch women for other posts-- Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano come to mind-- but those women would also have to want to leave their elected positions in order to take a cabinet post.

It is also largely agreed that his first Supreme Court appointment will be a woman-- possibly Sonya Sottomayor-- and S.Ct. appointments last a lifetime, while cabinet members serve maximally eight years.

The reason that HIllary CLinton was such a rare leader is that women are making it to the top of their fields in smaller numbers-- as is evidenced by the numbers of female partners in law firms, female elected officials, female CEOs, and female university presidents. In fact, she herself had to wait her turn to make a run while her husband-- arguably inferior to her in intellect and certainly her inferior in judgment-- got his chance. Work/Family challenges are a major part of this, with most women reporting that they shoulder most or all family responsibilities and have limited their careers accordingly.

Obama will hire women in his administration-- as he hired brilliant women in his campaign-- but he didn't cause the reality on the ground. For my part, if I had to choose between Obama selecting two extra female cabinet members or pushing for a more robust FMLA and support for child care, I'd take the latter. That is more likely to pave the way for my daughter to be Secretary of Something.

[jsteele]

Here is an article that directly addresses the role of women in the Obama administration:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/07/obama-white-house-women

[Anonymous]

Laura Tyson would be great for Treasury. I would argue more qualified than Corzine for this particular crisis.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I saw the cabinet likely list this morning and won a free dinner from my boss. He was an Obama supporter and I a McCain supporter. I told him three (3) months ago that if Obama was elected the cabinet would contain: NO JEWS, NO BLACKS and NO WOMEN. Further I postulated that we would see a recycling of the Clinton White House, and lo and behold - look who's back - Ron Emanuel - misogynist viper man.

So, I assume your boss hasn't had to cook in a week or so given that you must be buying him dinners nightly. Let's see: Tim Geithner is a Jew, Hillary and Napolitano are women, Richardson is Hispanic, Holder is black. I hope your annual bonus is not linked to your predictive powers.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw the cabinet likely list this morning and won a free dinner from my boss. He was an Obama supporter and I a McCain supporter. I told him three (3) months ago that if Obama was elected the cabinet would contain: NO JEWS, NO BLACKS and NO WOMEN. Further I postulated that we would see a recycling of the Clinton White House, and lo and behold - look who's back - Ron Emanuel - misogynist viper man.

So, I assume your boss hasn't had to cook in a week or so given that you must be buying him dinners nightly. Let's see: Tim Geithner is a Jew, Hillary and Napolitano are women, Richardson is Hispanic, Holder is black. I hope your annual bonus is not linked to your predictive powers.

L! Freakin' O! L !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw the cabinet likely list this morning and won a free dinner from my boss. He was an Obama supporter and I a McCain supporter. I told him three (3) months ago that if Obama was elected the cabinet would contain: NO JEWS, NO BLACKS and NO WOMEN. Further I postulated that we would see a recycling of the Clinton White House, and lo and behold - look who's back - Ron Emanuel - misogynist viper man.

Ummmm. Rahm Emanuel is Jewish. He's not a cabinet officer, but he is WH Chief of Staff, which I consider pretty damn important, as much so as a cabinet member.

I'm a little confused by the misogynist viper man feeling you have. I don't know him personally, but the DC grapevine appears to say that he can be a hard-ass and has a potty-mouth, but I don't really equate that with being misogynist.

Why do you call him that? What has he done that you see as misogynistic?