Where to Find Qualified Women

Surely you've heard dozens of times of the progressive — or even non-ideological — organization whose leadership professes to wish to have more women in high-level roles, but just can't seem to find qualified candidates for openings when they arise. Something to keep in mind next time you hear something like that would be GFR's take on how Hillary Clinton's campaign staff came to have so many women in senior positions:

After all, it’s not like there was some huge population of female strategists out there the various campaigns were competing for and Clinton just happened to snap them all up. Clinton created, on her own, a cadre of female strategists to serve her political needs, by spotting talent in the women around her and promoting them up the political food chain. No other candidate can say, for example, that their campaign is being managed by their former female scheduler.

It also might be worth noting in this regard that I think almost everyone would agree that Clinton's had the best-run campaign — free of mistakes, and seemingly drawing blood on those occasions when they've felt the need to attack.

Comments

"Clinton's had the best-run campaign — free of mistakes"

How do you explain Woodstock? (even liberal Ezra Klein referred to her as a "hippie" on Thursday's edition of Hardball).

How do you explain her comments to the Boston Globe's editoral page?

Rudy and McCain and Romney are pounding her day and night.

Mitt Romney seemed to take aim at the Clintons' marital turmoil for the second time in two days Friday, cautioning voters this Halloween to beware "Hillary's House of Horrors" and its "family values in shambles" room.

During a question-and-answer session in West Des Moines, Iowa, a man asked Romney if he would support a Halloween event that he was planning. "You know, that's a great idea," Romney replied.

"What do you think about Hillary's House of Horrors? All right? And we'd have ... the 'raise your tax' room. We'd have the 'weaker military' room. We'd have the 'family values in shambles' room," he said.

"Frankly," Romney added, "what the Democrats are selling is really quite frightening these days as we approach Halloween."

On Thursday, during a stop in New Hampshire, Romney said, "During the last Clinton presidency, the White House did not demonstrate [family values] in a way that was helpful to our nation's character."

Former President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998 on charges connected to his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

The Senate opted not to boot him from office.

Romney's spokesman, Kevin Madden, said Romney's remarks refer to "substantive differences in public policy," not the Lewinsky scandal.

"They are not personal," he insisted.

Asked to comment, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign recycled the same response it gave the day before.

"Hillary Clinton needs no lessons on character from a man who switches his positions on a daily basis," spokesman Howard Wolfson said.

See, Lewinsky, Lewinsky, Lewinsky. Family Values, Family Values, Family Values.

You people in the Beltway are out of touch, with all your cocktail parties.
*
*
*

Posted by Big Tent Democrat | October 28, 2007 12:20 PM

Whereas in most workplaces, women who get put in anything even vaguely secretarial (like, for example, a scheduler) are pretty much stuck there, regardless of their qualifications.

I'm thinking of a story a family member who works at an international ngo told me, about having some negotiations involving two developing countries. There was a woman with relevant advanced degrees, experience with the organization, and who had lived in both countries (and spoke both languages fluently). But of course she had been hired as a secretary, so the job went to an objectively less-qualified white man who had been hired for a different slot on the flow chart.

Posted by rufustfyrfly | October 28, 2007 12:21 PM

Rufus,

you'd make a great prezident.

I see you still have a sense of humor, using the word "slot" in talking about women in the workplace.

Posted by Big Tent Democrat | October 28, 2007 12:29 PM

Hey "Big Tent", I don't know what soured your milk this morning, but could you please quit trolling? Thanks.

Posted by DRR | October 28, 2007 12:35 PM

Well, I'm not so sure about the last point. Did she actually come out ahead on the "talk with foreign leaders" bit? Where else has she attacked?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | October 28, 2007 12:39 PM

"It also might be worth noting in this regard that I think almost everyone would agree that Clinton's had the best-run campaign"

Yes and no.

I actually think that while the Clinton campaign has proven themselves quite smart tactically, they've badly positioned themselves strategically.

Posted by Petey | October 28, 2007 12:47 PM

Heh!

Did you see Senator Dodd on MTP? A truly perfect performance!

Posted by Big Tent Democrat | October 28, 2007 12:47 PM

You do understand that Senator Dodd is working for Senator Clinton, don't you, BTD?

Posted by Petey | October 28, 2007 12:49 PM

That's good. Clinton presidency, 8 more years of war in Iraq. Can't f'ing wait.

"You do understand that Senator Dodd is working for Senator Clinton"

In the sense of intentionally making Edwards and Obama look bad to e.g. me in comparison with the goal of getting HRC elected?

Posted by rilkefan | October 28, 2007 1:03 PM

"In the sense of intentionally making Edwards and Obama look bad to e.g. me in comparison with the goal of getting HRC elected"

Yup.

It seems that Dodd, and to a lesser extent Richardson, are attempting to serve the Clinton campaign in search of future jobs.

Posted by Petey | October 28, 2007 1:10 PM

Oddly, Biden, who I originally expected to be playing a Clinton support role in hopes of getting the State Department, has not acted as her minion...

Posted by Petey | October 28, 2007 1:12 PM

Petey,

I find that comment smug and.. well, stupid.

You don't know anything, do you?

Heh!

Posted by Big Tent Democrat | October 28, 2007 1:13 PM

Yglesias is underestimating factors like (a) broader changes in the culture as regards women in the workplace, (b) the extent to which women have long been particularly involved in politics (often as a function, I think, of being shut out of "more important work"), and (c) the interplay between the two. He might start by googling Sheila Burke.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 28, 2007 1:14 PM

He might start by googling Sheila Burke.

(shaking head in contempt and disgust)

Listen up, you bunch of no nothings, I would start by googling Rita Faltoyano, if you want to get anywhere.

Heh!

Posted by Big Tent Democrat | October 28, 2007 1:20 PM

Big Tent Democrat=Big Fucking Republican?

He's certainly got the wit, charm and misogyny down cold.

Posted by DMonteith | October 28, 2007 3:12 PM

Big Tent Democrat=Big Fucking Republican?

He's certainly got the wit, charm and misogyny down cold.

Posted by DMonteith | October 28, 2007 3:12 PM

Heh!

*
*

Posted by Big Tent Democrat | October 28, 2007 4:58 PM

So if Hillary is elected and continues the Iraq war it won't matter as long as she meets or exceeds GFR's women-in-high-places quota.

Wow. What a value system.

Posted by kafka | October 28, 2007 6:20 PM

since the blogosphere is still 98% young white guys who think they're smarter than they really are, one wouldn't expect any kind of intelligent response to stuff like what Matt posted here....

Yes, Evil Clinton Establishment Media DLC Conspiracy. No doubt. I buy it.

But I know LOTS of middle-class women who have gone to college, been shaped by feminism, and find it really hard to ignore all the ways in which Hillary seems a strong and self-interested choice.

young white smarter-than-everyone internet guys generally, re. feminism, don't have a fucking clue....

Posted by nick | October 28, 2007 9:59 PM

What is a "former female scheduler"? Someone who used to schedule females? Or someone who used to be female?

Posted by Posted by | October 28, 2007 11:08 PM

The previous post should have mentioned that "former female scheduler" sounds like a position that would have been appropriate to Bill Clinton!

Matt is right--and that's always been the source of my support for Clinton. She identified a problem (in her estimation), and took steps to address it. And lo and behold, it worked. That's how she will approach everything as president, and that's what I want.

Posted by Rich | October 29, 2007 1:31 PM

The Feminine Critique

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/fashion/01WORK.html?em&ex=1194062400&en=8d76eff453dc226c&ei=5087%0A

You know, in terms of figuring out why it's been so hard for women to move up in many organizations, I think it's extremely instructive to note that this article is in the "style" section and not the business section.

Apparently, the inability to see the talents of employees and promote them accordingly is an issue that belongs not on the business pages but on the fashion pages. This I would not have expected.

Posted by anonymous | November 1, 2007 2:16 PM