Personnel

Via GFR, the HuffPo does us an excellent service and gives us a gender breakdown for presidential campaign staff. Hillary Clinton leads the pack in terms of women in senior positions, and is essentially tied with Mike Huckabee in terms of mid-level positions. Rudy Giuliani, who's entire political persona is machismo, comes in dead last — he has as many child molester priests at his consulting firm than women in senior campaign positions.

As Garance says, these figures can probably "be viewed as proxies for what their administrations would look like" at least as far as White House staff. Indeed, my bet is that one of the most important legacies of a Hillary Clinton administration would be bequeathing to the Democratic Party a network of powerful plugged-in insiders that winds up containing substantially more women in senior roles than we have right now, along with perhaps a higher number of men comfortable working with power female colleagues and superiors. iven that the party's voting base is composed mostly of women, this is a transformation that's going to have to be made sooner or later, and the progressive coalition will definitely be stronger once it's done.

Comments

I guess they're not including Judy.

Posted by Shinyk | October 26, 2007 1:20 PM

And what does this mean as far as policy goes? Or has Matt Yglesias lost interest in Clinton's hawkishness and love of executive power as Clinton's nomination becomes more "inevitable"?

Posted by Christmas | October 26, 2007 1:23 PM

On the Democratic side, I think the lack of representation in Barack's and Edwards' campaigns have more to do with HRC's presence in the field than anything else.

Posted by Keith | October 26, 2007 1:26 PM

That's such a silly argument. By the way where's the racial breakdown? Isn't the same argument valid for an Obama administration, and could it not be argued that race rather than gender is something that progressives truly need to understand and get a better handle on? Both by the way are true, but it's still offensive that white women are the true beneficiaries of all the talk of this "historical" race and people of color continue to be marginalized and the significance of an Obama campaign.

Posted by cb | October 26, 2007 1:27 PM

When did you start becoming so Serious, Matt?

Posted by Rich | October 26, 2007 1:49 PM

Who are you and what have you done with the real Matthew Yglesias.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | October 26, 2007 1:50 PM

Also What Keith Said ... there's obviously some interplay between campaigns here. If Clinton were not in the race and a third of her staff went to work for Obama or Edwards they'd be around 45% or so.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | October 26, 2007 2:04 PM

I like Matthew's insane refusal to state that Placa is only accused. It drags him down to the same level as all those insane right wingers who say that John Edwards had an affair (hey, it's an alleged affair, so under Yglasias logic, it's known to be true!).. and even better the insane right wingers who allege Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster (another allegation... so those insane rightwingers are perfectly entitled to say that Hillary is a murderer!).

Posted by Al | October 26, 2007 2:22 PM

"Who are you and what have you done with the real Matthew Yglesias."

I told you Matt was pseudo-endorsing Clinton for President, and you didn't believe me, Nicholas.

It's the same mechanism that led Matt to support the Iraq war: he's very susceptible to those around him.

And while Clinton may not have much support among high-information Dems nationally, she's got a lot of support among high-information Dems inside of the Beltway. Those are the people Matt is susceptible to.

If Clinton gets the nomination, which is far less certain that the current zeitgeist would have it, we can be sure that Matt will be writing blistering posts in 2010 about how poor a choice the Party made, and how foolish he was to go along for the ride.

Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 2:25 PM

It's the same mechanism that led Matt to support the Iraq war: he's very susceptible to those around him.

And while Clinton may not have much support among high-information Dems nationally, she's got a lot of support among high-information Dems inside of the Beltway. Those are the people Matt is susceptible to.

This is right, with the added pressure that Yglesias is a professional liberal pundit, and thus obligated to support the eventual Democratic nominee. As the conventional wisdom now holds that Clinton will inevitably be coronated, the incentive for professional liberal pundits isn't to criticize Clinton for her many, many, many failings - it's to find any reason they can to endorse her candidacy, so they don't find themselves in the awkward position of being doggedly opposed to their party's nominee. You can already see this dynamic playing out with Ezra Klein, too, who's gone out of his way to find half-hearted reasons to praise Clinton over the last few weeks.

The netroots-type bloggers have been very openly in the tank for "whoever wins," to the point of utterly abandoning any dedication to policy or substance - I can't remember the last time I read Markos Moulitsas criticizing the Clintons. But the punditsphere is open to the same type of pressures, and is folding in more or less the same way. In the end they'll fall in line like everybody else.

Posted by Christmas | October 26, 2007 2:38 PM

"I can't remember the last time I read Markos Moulitsas criticizing the Clintons."

Markos just supports whoever raises the most dough. He knows he can't openly praise Clinton because he'd piss off the grassroots Dems who make up his audience and pay his mortgage. But I'd assume he'd be just fine with either Obama or Clinton at the end of the day.

And Edwards as President would actually push for increased regulation of political money, which is Markos' ultimate bête noire. So between that and Edwards' less affluent donor base, Edwards must be Markos' worst nightmare.

Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 2:59 PM

Keith proposition is probably sexist, assuming that there is such a small pool of qualified women that there isn't enough to be split three ways. I am thinking I could find enough female FP or Health Wonks in Boston alone to staff all three campaigns.

But enough dissension. The Party needs to come together and present a united front. HRC may not have been our first choice, or our ideal candidate, but we don't need to inflict pointless & unnecessary damage on her. I ask the Obama & Edwards supporters to contact their favoured candidate about early concessions and pooling of resources under the Clinton '08 banner. In your heart...

Posted by bob mcmanus | October 26, 2007 3:14 PM

"But enough dissension. The Party needs to come together and present a united front. HRC may not have been our first choice, or our ideal candidate, but we don't need to inflict pointless & unnecessary damage on her. I ask the Obama & Edwards supporters to contact their favoured candidate about early concessions and pooling of resources under the Clinton '08 banner. In your heart..."

I honestly can't tell if that's ultra dry sarcasm or honest to goodness weird thinking, bob.

Personally, I'm more familiar with the school of thought that the coming together comes after the primaries, not before. But then again, I'm a big fan of the open primary system and lots of elections.

You can assemble some real power through elections...

Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 3:30 PM

sarcasm, Petey, trying to get a rise. Better anger than depression, I think, and 2008 will provide buchu opportunities for both.

Posted by bob mcmanus | October 26, 2007 3:53 PM

"Better anger than depression, I think, and 2008 will provide buchu opportunities for both."

I actually feel pretty good about the situation. I'm not sure depression is going to be warranted.

Edwards needs to bring home rural Iowa and win the caucuses, but if he can't do that, he doesn't deserve the job.

And if he wins Iowa, I think all the pieces are in place for him to win the nomination.

Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 3:59 PM

The anger & depression will be partly exogenous to the elections, tho I am already depressed about the elections.

The note about staffing was not sarcastic. I cannot imagine a pool of useful qualified women so small that HRC hired most of them.

Posted by bob mcmanus | October 26, 2007 4:07 PM

Matt is spot on. A full half of the talent available to either party- or maybe more! is female.

An economy- political or otherwise- does better if it can use all the available talent.

Posted by serial catowner | October 26, 2007 4:33 PM

And if he wins Iowa, I think all the pieces are in place for him to win the nomination.

From your fingertips to God's eyes!

Posted by Al | October 26, 2007 5:22 PM

It's obtuse to say the Democrats should speed up the (inevitable) process of revealing themselves as the anti-white male party. In an age of identity politics, it's stupid to intentionally anger the most formidable, most talented bloc out there.

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 26, 2007 5:36 PM

"From your fingertips to God's eyes!"

Hey, the Spurs were the third seed too...

Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 5:38 PM

Hey, the Spurs were the third seed too...

Are saying the refs (which I assume would be the media) are in the tank for Edwards? Doesn't seem that way.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 26, 2007 5:41 PM

"Are saying the refs (which I assume would be the media) are in the tank for Edwards?"

Of course not. But I think Edwards is going to win the game within the rules.

If an altercation occurs, Elizabeth won't rush off the bench.

Hence no suspensions will be imposed by the commissioner, and Edwards can use his high approval ratings among NH Dems to ride the free media tornado off his Iowa win, take NH, and spray America with champagne.

Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 5:56 PM

Tell me why I care, please. Am I happy that women have these jobs because they're so much more _____ than men? Fill in the blank for me, please. Is it "progressive"? Is it "Democrat"? What?

And if it's because women are the oppressed, and we like to see them in power just because, I'm not buying it. Is that it? Just flesh this out because it doesn't go without saying.

Posted by Phoebe | October 26, 2007 7:20 PM

Standard MSM diversity mongering.

Posted by kafka | October 26, 2007 10:29 PM