« Double Down and Do It Dirty or Donate Till You Drop? | Desidero's Blog | McCain & the C*** Word: Too Ugly to Print? »
Women: Not Counted Out - Leading the Revolution
For all the talk about Sarah Palin wooing the disaffected Hillary fans, well I guess the net effect is a lot more turnout by women in this rather unusual year. As in women make up 57-58% of the voters in George and North Carolina so far. Of course I'd wager that this female vote is more mavericky than a few candidates who claim trademark on the word. I.e. I don't think we'll have a tanning booth in the White House come this time next year.
However I'm also wondering what the payback will be - if Obama's constituency ends up heavily tilted towards women by a 16% gap, what does this mean in terms of cabinet appointments and policy priorities? Early June it seemed like Obama was ramping up on female talent at the top, but it's not clear how serious that effort went. Meanwhile, it's notable that while the bailout "victims" have been passing out multi-million dollar bonuses, the top female CEO last year, Indra Nooyi from Pepsi, made only $12.8 million. (The top male CEO racked up over $180 mill, and Nooyi ranks 139th in compensation. Of the Fortune 500 CEO's, only 13 are women.)
So while we're already seeing a lot of Warren Buffet (who's putting some serious cash down on some leveraged bailout babies) tied in with this Administration, maybe we should start asking about where the Indra Nooyi's are. Because with all the heavy lifting women are doing in this campaign, it'd be a shame to find out that all the invites to the party have already got sent out.
However I'm also wondering what the payback will be - if Obama's constituency ends up heavily tilted towards women by a 16% gap, what does this mean in terms of cabinet appointments and policy priorities? Early June it seemed like Obama was ramping up on female talent at the top, but it's not clear how serious that effort went. Meanwhile, it's notable that while the bailout "victims" have been passing out multi-million dollar bonuses, the top female CEO last year, Indra Nooyi from Pepsi, made only $12.8 million. (The top male CEO racked up over $180 mill, and Nooyi ranks 139th in compensation. Of the Fortune 500 CEO's, only 13 are women.)
So while we're already seeing a lot of Warren Buffet (who's putting some serious cash down on some leveraged bailout babies) tied in with this Administration, maybe we should start asking about where the Indra Nooyi's are. Because with all the heavy lifting women are doing in this campaign, it'd be a shame to find out that all the invites to the party have already got sent out.
Advertisement
Rec!
Desidero, another post for which I could kiss you. Seriously.
I love Indra Nooyi. She is a personal heroine of mine. I watched her passion displayed at the Davos conference (the televised one, of course). She is completely fab.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbTPgIJAFHI
October 30, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aargh, and my Flash player audio decides to take a holiday. But if my lip reading was accurate, pretty good.
October 30, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't women always do the heavy lifting?
October 30, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't you get the memo? It is sexist for you to talk about these things.
October 30, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just being mavaricky they way "us gals" always do. You know, letting my "genital configuration" think for me.
October 30, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You betcha.
October 30, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounding pretty folksy yourself - I think all that time hanging out by the sea is turning you into a salty dog.
October 30, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a really interesting figure. I'm looking at demographic breakdowns of 1992 (women are 53% of the electorate), 1996 (52%), 2000 (52%) and 2004 (54%)...
The census data from 2006 has women over 18 at 52% of the population, and 53+% of the registered voters (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2006/tab01.csv). So overall, it would still be possible for female voters to end up at "only" their normally-larger proportion of about 53%, depending on election day returns, etc.
On the other hand, I read somewhere that women were under-represented in the Georgia voter registrations (the number I saw was 49%), in which case the discrepancy is even more dramatic.
I'm getting the national numbers from the Roper Institute (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/), by the way. I'm going to have to find a source for Georgia and North Carolina demographic breakdowns. Thanks for the link!
October 30, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just going to tuck this in here:
GA 2004 demographics: http://sos.georgia.gov/ELECTIONS/voter_registration/CFV2004-11-02.pdf
GA 2006: http://sos.georgia.gov/ELECTIONS/voter_registration/02-11-07_Race-gender.pdf
If you look at the 2006 numbers, the female turnout was about 53% both of registered and actual voters. In 2004, women were 54% of the registered voters and 55% of the actual voters. Again, the proof will be in the pudding, but women appear to just generally be more active in GA presidential contests.
October 31, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as administration positions, I'd expect Susan Rice to get something.
Attorney General might be a woman. I've heard Sebelius or Napolitano, but I've also heard Cuomo tossed around.
Other than that I have no idea. But I really have no idea what to expect in his Cabinet at all, so that's not saying much.
Regarding issues, I think a lot of the issues that are important to women are important to everyone right now, the economy and health care among the highest priorities. I'd like to see expanded paid sick days and an extension of FMLA. What I'd really like to see is a national policy of paid maternity (or paternity, for that matter) leave. It's a disgrace we don't have it. We're one of the only industrialized nations not to - in most other places you get around a year. A year! And FMLA only covers three months, unpaid, where your job is guaranteed. And only for large companies. That's disgraceful.
October 30, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary for the Supreme Court, if for no other reason than because it would cause so many GOP heads to explode.
October 30, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow Hillary on the Supreme Court doesn't quite seem her style. I see her as more a people person and policy wonk than a statute thumber.
October 31, 2008 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The CEO's making those 8-figure salaries are all in financials aren't they? What does the male CEO of Coke make? Isn't that a better comparison.
When was the last time the Democratic electorate did not have a sizable female majority? What share of the black electorate is female?
Who is the more appropriate voice to listen to on a financial crisis, the CEO of Pepsi of Warren Buffett? (although I doubt Buffett is as important a voice as Volcker for example.)
We already know there are major female voices in the Obama campaign Rice, Power, Jarrett, Tyson, Sebelius, McCaskill,
October 30, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nooyi's $12.8 is 3rd in Food & Beverage behind $66 million for Dean Foods and $23 mill for Altria Group. Coke's is $9 million, but Isdell came out of retirement for fun and already owns $35 million worth of Coke stock.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/12/lead_bestbosses08_CEO-Compensation-Food-Drink-Tobacco_9Rank.html
It just might be if Obama looks hard he can find a female who knows something about finance.
Power already resigned - it's doubtful she's coming back. I don't know that Sebelius & McClaskey count as "major female voices in the Obama campaign" unless that includes Oprah as well.
October 31, 2008 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forget Jarrett as Chief of Staff (the obvious position for her) - going to Rahm Emanuel.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jld3VILFDbEY6uciu_lp_YgBnGqwD945421O0
Whatever happened to Solis-Doyle anyway? Is she actually the VP's chief of staff as announced in June?
October 31, 2008 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
So who are you suggesting should be giving him advise about the financial crisis? Surely by making this post you had more than 1 person in mind. I seriously doubt he is consulting Volcker or Levitt because they are men. Laura Tyson is not woman enough for you? I am sure he has/will consult with Sheila Bair.
All governors are very important in policy formulation since they have to deal with what Washington hands down. I am sure Sebelius and Napolitano, and Gregoire and Granholm and (ex-gov) Shaheen are and will be important policy influences. (mentioning Oprah in the same breadth just proves you can be a dick when you want). Are you suggesting Clinton and McCaskill, in the Senate are irrelevant to policy making?
I have no idea what role Valerie Jarrett will play, but by your admission you concede she may well be a candidate for chief of staff, which runs against the current of your commentary. Emmanuel is not going to be chief of staff. That's a joke. Someone who is probably qualified, but not be interested is Robert Rubin's old Chief of Staff, a woman named Sylvia Matthews.
October 31, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
May I quibble? Obama's constituency, if he's elected, will be everyone. Not just the people who voted for him. So object to the idea of "payback."
That said, I agree that it would be fantastic to see a significant number of qualified women in strong positions in an Obama administration.
October 31, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Life has winners and losers, even small groups in school have their alphas and their deltas. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. A variety of access dinners have started - $28K to meet with Warren Buffett, smaller amounts to meet with former Clinton advisors. Politics is as usual. Push your power.
October 31, 2008 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Women, like chickens, are quite used to being underepresented. That is changing, but as with all things it changes sloooowly.
I am very glad hat Obama obviously loves and respects strong women. His mother, his grandmother, and Michelle are all good role models and people to admire.
I have no doubt that he will appoint a lot of women, not out of a sense of "payback" but because of who he is.
October 31, 2008 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Des. The reticence of Obama to talk directly to female voters and send his surrogates out to do the reaching out for him has troubled me. For all the talk about how important women were to the election, he waited until September (?!) to start talking directly to them rather than sending Hillary or McCaskill or Michelle. And that was only at the height of Palin-mania. Had McCain not have picked Palin, I doubt that minimal outreach would even have happened. But I am looking forward to see what female he hires for the newly created Department of Women's Issues s Obama doesn't have to speak to that constituency.
Bill Clinton's first legislation? FMLA - a topic enormousely important to women (and men). What will Obama's legislative priority be for women? I haven't the foggiest.
October 31, 2008 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have nothing to add. Actually, I still don't understand what the soap opera was with the Clintons at the convention. Were they wanted? Weren't they? Did they ask too much? Did they do just right? Are they rehabilitated, still on probation or on an early release program for good behavior? What was the message we were supposed to receive? And is Clintonomics acceptable to mention again post-meltdown?
Here's Naomi Klein and Steve Weisman on previous economic about-faces. Just assume nothing we know is for certain. Oh, just announced yesterday - AIG's running through its bailout money and its financial status of a few weeks a go may have been based on cooked books! Who'd of thunk it?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein
http://www.truthout.org/article/how-much-change-does-robert-rubin-believe-in
October 31, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you of the belief that women are not in the majority in virtually every speech he gives. Do yo seriously think he is avoiding speaking directly to women? Really? And do you seriously think that Hillary wasn't Bill's chief surrogate to women in 1992. Every candidate has surrogates, but that does not mean substitutes. This kind of commentary is beneath you.
It still amazes me that you see a man raised by his grandmother and mother, married to a strong woman and father of two daughters as being removed in any way from the real concerns of women. I can't believe you really believe that.
October 31, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was even born of a woman, how 'bout dat!
October 31, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
He had MONTHS to show concern and sat twiddling his thumbs not speaking out to women voters himself directly, and it frustrated me to no end.
Bill Clinton was all over speaking directly to women voters himself(no remarks from the peanut gallery please), although Hillary was definitely a surrogate for him. Bill was all over speaking directly to African American voters himself as a constituency(which Obama has not really done in the general election campaign because he hasn't had a need to). Maybe Obama's philosophy is that we can bring everyone together and he doesn't need to speak to any one demographic.
But the fact is particularly after the beating feminists took during this campaign, some reaching out and inroads was necessary. The level of mockery at the issues of sexism and misogyny throughout the primary campaign in the progressive community that was appalling and some of it has acrried over. Recognizing that issues important to women should be given a space on the agenda is now some kind of reverse discrimination against men. It feels to me like feminists are now the Log Cabin Republicans in the progressive community.
Obama left the outreach to Hillary and Michelle and other Democratic women. That does not indicate to me that women's concerns are going to be a high priority in the administration unless their concerns are given a seat at the table and considered important by Obama and the Democratic party.
October 31, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The New Log Cabin Republicans? Ouch. How about The Silenced Majority?
October 31, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Silenced Majorty wouldn't work. I have no intentions of being silent, regardless if they want to hear it or not :)
October 31, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The world would be a poorer place if you were silent, D!
October 31, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's obvious you've never heard me do karaoke :)
October 31, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, it's all about you now, is it? ;-)
October 31, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just now? You mean it wasn't always? ;o)
November 1, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does "talk directly to female voters" mean, Dija? I don't understand the criticism at all.
October 31, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS I mean that in quite possibly naive rather than accusatory sense. If I understand correctly, you've got some specific strategies in mind that would've seemed more female-focused -- I'm just not sure I understand what those are nor how they would've directly spoken to women.
October 31, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual Paige goes from 0 to asshat in 10 words or less. Have you never heard of civility in political discourse? :)
What I meant was the first Obama Women for Change rally that he attended personally in the general election season was on September 20th. All that griping about how women need to get behind Obama and Hillary needed to deliver her voters. It took that long for him to stand on a stage and deliver a *great* speech on issues that matter to women directly to women.
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Sidebar/2008/9/20/transcript_barack_obama_at_bethunecookman_university.html
But it only happened in the context of Palin getting lots of initially positive press from the convention speech and McCain opening up a lead in the polls. If women's issues are so important to Obama, why not direct outreach BEFORE his back was to the wall? It took him four months to give the speech. How long before he is in office an acts on it? I am less than convinced women's issues will be a priority.
October 31, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
To carry on from your point below - I think Obama will have women in his administration in powerful positions. However, given he's so comfortable with women (and he is, Desidero. Look at the powerful women who surround him) he won't hire a woman just because she is a woman. Said woman's qualifications and abilities will get her the job. And I don't want it to be any other way. Really.
I hope he brings Samantha Powers back. I hope he lets Susan Rice create a really powerful Africa policy for him. I hope he keeps the current person in that same position Susan Rice filled in the Clinton administration. I think her name is Jendayi Frazer. I want that. I want a very strong policy which will finally fill out that Clinton dream for Africa and take it to a new level. And it could happen. Just saying.
October 31, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
aack. Meant it for Desidero in that first box.
October 31, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
No prob, I'm down with non-linear thinking and blogging.
October 31, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, positions are going out.
Jane Harman will get something. Commerce will be female. UN Ambassador likely Rice, but darkhorse Caroline Kennedy? 1st Supreme Court pick likely to be female. Overall not terribly promising. Ladies, better start complaining.
October 31, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink