And for the women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous 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.

Not sure if you saw it yesterday but Condi Rice gave a very gracious speech about the election of Barack Obama. I often feel that Condi gets no credit for her accomplishments as an African-American woman because she works for a hated administration. Frankly, Bush got no credit for the diversity in his cabinet and it was a heck of a lot more diverse than Clinton's.

Condi Rice has been a simply terrible SecState and was also a terrible NatSec Adviser; it's not about the administration she works for, it's about her own performance over the last 8 years....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe this discussion is continuing and so many people are so disappointed and disapproving of his Cabinet choices already, when he hasn't even appointed his Cabinet.

The OP started off this thread by criticizing Obama preemptively for not appointing any black people, Jewish people, or any women... when his first appointee is Jewish. Fine, maybe that's not technically a Cabinet position. It's more powerful than some of the Cabinet spots and Emanuel will no doubt be helping in the Cabinet selection.

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.

I'm sure there are qualified and effective leaders from all walks of life. I trust Obama to make it his priority not just to appoint a qualified and effective person, but the person he believes is most qualified and effective. I hope that some of these people are from different demographics, but I will not consider his Cabinet (fifteen people) to be the be-all, end-all representation of everything he has done or will do regarding the support and nurturing of women and minorities.

My guess is that these early naysayers are former Clinton supporters who have yet to get over the loss and that nothing Obama does will be enough. Maybe he will disappoint, but how could we possibly know that yet? Let's wait and be mad later if necessary and just enjoy the victory for now.

Oh, please, Caroline Kennedy will not be appointed ambassador to the UN. Ambassador to somewhere nice, if she wants it, but not the UN. And although the Amb to the UN is
not currently a cabinet post, it has been in the past (Albright, Kirkpatrick, etc.) and the President can easily elevate it back to cabinet status if he wants.

[jsteele]

jsteele wrote:
Obviously, Obama will have a diverse cabinet that will include blacks, Jews, and women. Sadly, it probably won't include a Muslim or openly homosexual person of any race or gender.

I may have been partly wrong in my predictions. Obama is apparently considering an openly gay adoptive mom to be the Secretary of Labor. If so, I will be extremely happy to have been wrong.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/12/02/union-activist-mary-beth-maxwell-on-list-for-labor-secretary/

She sounds like a great choice.

BTW, is anyone still concerned about a lack of diversity in Obama's cabinet?

[Anonymous]

So, checking in on this thread with only a couple of Cabinet posts left, Obama has 22% women in his cabinet, compared with 47% for Bill Clinton.

For those posters who said I should assume Obama would appoint women, and give him the benefit of the doubt early on- any thoughts?

[Anonymous]

While I agree that Obama should be mindful of having women represented on the Cabinet, I trust that he has filled the spots with the people he feels are best suited to the positions. I am not concerned with whether he has achieved a certain arbitrary percentage.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
For those posters who said I should assume Obama would appoint women, and give him the benefit of the doubt early on- any thoughts?

Let's see. Female Secretary of State. Female Secretary of Homeland Security. Female Ambassador to the UN. That means three of five national security positions are filled by woman.

Female EPA Administrator. Female Assistant for Climate Change. Female Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. That means woman dominate on the environment.

Female Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors and, according to Politico, the first female head of the SEC. Woman don't dominate on the economy, but have a strong role. I'll grant you that having Summers adds to the negative column.

Where women are underrepresented is in the domestic policy positions where only Melody Barnes is director of the Domestic policy council. Though, its possible that Obama may soon announce the first openly gay cabinet member, adding another woman. That may be how he makes up for having Rick Warren at the inauguration.

I guess you could focus on raw numbers and see the glass as only 22% full. Or you could note that woman are playing leading roles in national defense, the environment, and the economy. Perhaps that doesn't make up for being passed over for that coveted Agricultural Secretary position, but its not too shabby.

[Anonymous]

22% is still 22% no matter how you slice it Jeff. That's 22% of the federal workforce with a male boss. Ba humbug.

[Anonymous]

He didn't go with Maxwell for Labor, but with Hilda Solis, who is a good choice. I would have liked to see more women, but I'm generally happy. The two negatives, to me, are Larry Summers and Bill Richardson, Summers for obvious reasons, Richardson for more subtle ones.

[Anonymous]

16:26 here. Just realized one Cabinet appointment that really disappointed me: Ray LaHood for Transportation. Ugh. What was Obama thinking?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:22% is still 22% no matter how you slice it Jeff.

Indeed, and if all that matters is raw numbers then you have the right to be upset. I think its important to look beyond the numbers.

Anonymous wrote:
That's 22% of the federal workforce with a male boss. Ba humbug.

You lost me here. If you meant that 22% has a "female" boss, it still makes no sense. Not all federal agencies have the same staff sizes. For instance, DHS -- soon to be woman-led -- is the third largest. The State Department is also quite large.

At any rate, I've never been a supporter of numeric quotas. Its important for a variety of groups to have important roles and Obama has successfully seen to that (with the possible exception of "southerners" which I previously didn't realize was considered a minority group). But, can you cite cases in which Obama passed over a more-qualified woman in order to select a man? It seems to me that purely on the basis of qualifications, this is a hard group to argue about.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:16:26 here. Just realized one Cabinet appointment that really disappointed me: Ray LaHood for Transportation. Ugh. What was Obama thinking?

I don't know much about LaHood's politics, but he is from Peoria and has Lebanese ancestry. I was born in Peoria and my mother has Lebanese ancestry. So, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Anonymous]

My mother has lebanese ancestry too, and she and I both wish Obama had appointed more women in his cabinet.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Jeff wholeheartedly. The people are more important to me than the percentages.

[Anonymous]

My problem with LaHood is that I think he was purely a quota pick-- to get another republican. I can't imagine he's the most qualified candidate for DOT.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16:26 here. Just realized one Cabinet appointment that really disappointed me: Ray LaHood for Transportation. Ugh. What was Obama thinking?

I don't know much about LaHood's politics, but he is from Peoria and has Lebanese ancestry. I was born in Peoria and my mother has Lebanese ancestry. So, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Lebanese ancestry and Peoria aside : he has something like a 37% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters. His mass transit voting record is almost as poor as his record on the environment and climate change. DOT needs to be headed by a reform-minded leader who will focus on mass transit as a way of reducing our (huge) contributions to global warming. LaHood isn't that person, and he's going to have a tough time staffing up with politicals who are serious about mass transit and climate change unless he does a T. Boone Pickens-style about face, and fast. Bush used DOT to demonstrate token bipartisanship; it seems Obama is going the same (and home state political patronage too). This is clearly a case of passing over far more qualified and like-minded candidates for political purposes, so that's why it bothers me. (The quid-pro-quo Richardson appointment is the only other one I really question.) Transportation is a major piece of the climate change puzzle and it's been treated as a throwaway agency for quite awhile now. I know Obama is serious about addressing climate change, but this pick doesn't demonstrate that.

Stepping off this here soapbox now!