Of course the manliest of manly men (ahem), Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, employ only a few female senior staffers. Edwards and Obama don't fare much better.
Power is difficult to discern, but the relative influence of women within presidential campaigns can be partially gauged by gender ratios among salaried operatives playing strategic leadership and advisory roles, the top twenty best-paid individuals, and staff who were paid more than $9000 in the last quarter.The campaign of Republican Mike Huckabee achieves the closest gender balance at a near 50% division between men and women on all measures (it is also the smallest of all the major campaigns). The campaigns of Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson, and Republican Mitt Romney are also fairly balanced, with Clinton's somewhat favoring women and Richardson's and Romney's somewhat favoring men. The most gender-skewed campaign, in contrast, is that of Rudy Giuliani.
I think Garance correctly assesses this as foreshadowing what the gender breakdown would be in the candidates' administrations.
And on another election-related note, Dana pleads for people to stop referring to Giuliani as pro-choice. She notes that "'pro-choice' politicians don't 'reassure' Sam Brownback that they'll appoint "strict constructionist" justices to the Supreme Court following the model of John Roberts, as Giuliani did yesterday."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Who's got the dudeliest campaign staff?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/6244
The fact that Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Republican Mitt Romney are more gender balanced makes me consider them more as candidates. Before, I had completely ruled out Clinton. I wonder if this statistic will influence other voters and become a larger issue in campaigns. I hope it does.
Am I the only one that doesn't like ANY of the candidates from either party? I'm having a hard time even settling on one person (besides Kucinich, but unfortunately, he has no chance of winning).
I'm glad that a woman is running, but I don't particularly care for Clinton.
I want a candidate that I am sure is not beholden to corporate interests, and I don't think any of them have proven that.
That's true, nerdalert, but it's hard for any candidate not to be beholden to corporate donors because of our messed-up way of financing elections. I just read this great column by Anna Quindlen arguing for public finance of elections, and I think she makes some really good points. All in all, I think non-corporately financed elections would do a lot of good for our democracy.
Er... G. wants public financing of abortions and believes that it is a constitutional right.
He's very pro-choice, but, inexplicably, he isn't getting nailed for it.
gretchen, i've long since thought that presidential candidates should each be issued (the equivalent of) a package of poster board and some markers and allowed to square off in an organized debate. no television ads, no corporate funding, no PACs.
it worked to get me elected as 4th grade class president; surely it can work for them, too.
I wasn't sure where to post this, but here's an article about Miss England being told to fatten up before her next competition. Will this will be the new trend?
http://news.aol.com/entertainment/story/ar/_a/miss-england-told-to-fatten-up-georgia/20071026184109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Which candidate has the doodliest staff? Hard to say. They all seem to be pretty doodly, with doodly-squat to offer us, with two exceptions.
Man, would I love to see Ron Paul run against Dennis Kucinich.
Rudy Giuliani is NOT pro-choice. Look at his statement on the April 18 decision.
I was actually disappointed to see that the Kucinich staff was not discussed in the article. I interned for this campaign this summer, and he is an amazing candidate and human being. The media tends not to take him as seriously as others, even though he has a thorough and well thought out platform.
Rudy Guiliani isn't pro-anything but pro-himself. Other than that, he doesn't much give a shit.
This has shown to be a pretty clear pattern. He'll say "oh, I absolutely would marry you guys when the law will allow me to" when he's staying in the home of a gay couple, and he'll say "yes, of course I'm pro-choice" when he's beholden to a pro-choice electorate, but right now, he's whatever the Republicans want him to be. If that means crossing off rights to, say, equal protection under the law when it comes to gays and/or women, he's ok with that. As long as he's re-elected.
He's a macho posturing bullshit artist.