US 2008 Presidential Campaign Thread - Part 2 - Page 30 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-25-2007, 10:05 AM   #436
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 07:39 PM
The following piece was produced by the Huffington Post's OffTheBus project.

The leadership of the major presidential campaigns is dominated by men, with the Democratic campaigns slightly more balanced than Republicans.

An analysis of recently released federal disclosure documents reveals that while women make up 40% of overall staff, they hold 32% of the 88 senior positions among the top eight national campaigns. Click here to see the numbers, broken down by campaign.

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.

In the campaign of the former New York mayor Giuliani, there is only one senior female staffer, who holds the title of Communications Director. Fewer than one-third of Giuliani's staff who earned $9000 or more in the last quarter are women, and just a quarter of his top twenty paid staff are women.

The Democrats' campaigns are more gender-balanced than Republicans'. Just over thirty percent of Republican senior staffers are women, compared to just under 33% of Democratic senior staffers. And there are ten more top salaried women in Democratic campaigns: 32 of 80 (40%) compared to 21 of 74 (28%) in Republican campaigns.

Each campaign has its own organizational structure but this review focuses on traditional senior staff: campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, and directors of critical campaign functions, including operations, finance, communications, field, policy, research, Internet, and political strategy. In addition, the review considered chief pollsters and lead media consultants, as well as senior advisors confirmed by the campaign staff and who appeared on the FEC reports as making more than $20,000 in the last quarter.

Among the campaigns reviewed -- those of Clinton, Edwards, Huckabee, Obama, Richardson, Romney, and Thompson -- women play all these strategic leadership roles, with the exception of pollster and Political Director. However, women are far more likely to hold positions in finance and internal operations.

Some studies of gender and leadership suggest that less-balanced campaigns may be hindering themselves by not employing a more substantial number of women in their most senior positions. "Evidence of a link between the bottom line and women at the top is growing," writes the Financial Times, summing up research on a number of recent studies correlating corporate success with significant female leadership.

A just-released report by the management consulting firm McKinsey suggests that "companies where women are most strongly represented at board or top-management level are also the companies that perform best"--not only financially, but also in accountability, innovation, and work environment. The Harvard Business Review, in a separate study, found that to benefit from women's participation, a corporate board needs at least three female directors.

Arguably, female leadership on presidential campaigns is even more important than in the boardroom. After all, presidential campaigns must engage the American public--including an electorate that is majority female.

Here's a cumulative ranking of senior staff gender breakdown of the major campaigns:

HUCKABEE--Balanced, slightly favors women
Senior Staff: 4 of 6 (Communications Director, Finance Director, Field Director, Policy Director)
Top 15 paid staff: 8 women, 7 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 8 of 15 (53%)

CLINTON--Balanced, but favors women
Senior Staff: 8 of 14 (Campaign Manager, Chief Media Strategist, Traveling Chief of Staff, Policy Director, Director of Operations, 3 well-paid Senior Advisors)
Top 20 paid staff: 12 women, 8 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 85 of 161 (52%)

RICHARDSON--Balanced, but favors men
Senior Staff: 4 of 11 (Deputy Campaign Manager, Finance Director, Internet Director, one Senior Finance Advisor)
Top 20 paid staff: 8 women, 12 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 15 of 38 (39%)

ROMNEY--Balanced, but favors men
Senior Staff: 4 of 11 (Campaign Manager, Policy Director, Operations Director, Internet Director)
Top 20 paid staff: 7 women, 13 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 51 of 126 (40%)

OBAMA--Few women the top
Senior Staff: 3 of 12 (Research Director, COO, Finance Director)
Top 20 paid staff: 5 women, 15 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 67 out of 150 gender identified (45%)

EDWARDS--Few women at the top
Senior Staff: 2 of 15 (Research Director, Chief of Staff)
Top 20 paid staff: 7 women, 13 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 34 of 92 (37%)

THOMPSON--Few women at the top
Senior Staff: 2 of 9 (Research Director, Finance Director)
Top 20 paid staff: 4 women, 16 men
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 11 of 37 (30%)

GIULIANI--Very imbalanced
Senior Staff: 1 of 10 (Communications Director)
Top 20 identified paid staff: 4 women, 15 men, 1 unknown gender
All paid over $9K/3rd quarter: 36 of 122 (29.5%) [four unknown gender]
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-25-2007, 03:39 PM   #437
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 07:39 PM
NY Times

In His Words: Giuliani on Torture

By Michael Cooper

DAVENPORT, Iowa — At a town hall meeting here last night, Rudolph W. Giuliani expanded upon his views of torture. Here is a transcript of the exchange.

Linda Gustitus, who is the president of a group called the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, began her question by saying that President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey (who happens to be an old friend of Mr. Giuliani’s) had “fudged” on the question of whether waterboarding is toture.

“I wanted to ask you two questions,’’ she said. “One, do you think waterboarding is torture? And two, do you think the president can order something like waterboarding even though it’s against U.S. and international law?’’

Mr. Giuliani responded: “Okay. First of all, I don’t believe the attorney general designate in any way was unclear on torture. I think Democrats said that; I don’t think he was.’’

Ms. Gustitus said: “He said he didn’t know if waterboarding is torture.”

Mr. Giuliani said: “Well, I’m not sure it is either. I’m not sure it is either. It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it. I think the way it’s been defined in the media, it shouldn’t be done. The way in which they have described it, particularly in the liberal media. So I would say, if that’s the description of it, then I can agree, that it shouldn’t be done. But I have to see what the real description of it is. Because I’ve learned something being in public life as long as I have. And I hate to shock anybody with this, but the newspapers don’t always describe it accurately.”

(Applause)

“If I can’t figure out that there’s been a significant media bias against this war, then I shouldn’t be running for president of the United States.”
(Applause)

“Sometimes they describe it accurately. Sometimes they exaggerate it. So I’d have to see what they really are doing, not the way some of these liberal newspapers have exaggerated it.”

“Now, on the question of torture. We should not torture. America should not stand for torture, America should not allow torture. But America should engage in aggressive questioning of Islamic terrorists who are arrested or who are apprehended. Because if we don’t we leave ourselves open to significant attack.”

“And the line between the two is very delicate and very difficult. But we can’t abandon aggressive questioning of people who are intent on coming here to kill us. Or killing us overseas. I think that that’s the point that the attorney general designate was trying to make.”

“And the powers of the president are pretty significant in protecting the national security of the United States. They always have been. So I think what he was also trying to do was protect the powers of the United States to deal with unforeseen circumstances like the hypothetical we were asked during one debate – I’ve forgotten which one: If there was a terrorist attack on an American city, and it was clear that there were all going to be additional attacks, some of them were going to be nuclear, and they were planned for the next couple of days and one of the people involved in it was arrested, and the head of the C.I.A. came to you and said we have to do certain things to get the information from him, would you authorize it? And I think most of us answered it, yes we would, we would authorize doing whatever we thought was the most effective to get that information.”

“The president has to have that kind of leeway. We’ve got to trust our president well enough to allow that. If we surround this so much with procedure, we’re going to have some unforeseen circumstance in which a president’s not going to feel comfortable making the right decision, particularly if you have the wrong person there. “

“So I think America should never be for torture. America should be against torture. It violates the Geneva Convention. Certainly when we’re dealing with armed combatants, we shouldn’t get near anything like that. There is a distinction, sometimes, when you’re dealing with terrorists. You may have to use means that are a little tougher.”

“And I see, when the Democrats are talking about torture, they’re not just talking about even this definition of waterboarding, which again, if you look at the liberal media and you look at the way they describe it, you could say it was torture and you shouldn’t do it. But they talk about sleep deprivation. I mean, on that theory, I’m getting tortured running for president of the United States. That’s plain silly. That’s silly.’’

“That comes from people who have never investigated a real criminal case, never investigated organized crime. You know how I put hundreds of Mafia people in jail? And I helped to put thousands in Italy in jail? You know how I did it? I did it by electronic surveillance and aggressive questioning. None of them wanted to give me the information. They didn’t walk into my office and say, ‘I want to tell you about all of those Mafia murders…”

“They got ‘em because we arrested them, we got very significant charges on them, and we questioned them for long, long periods of time. With very aggressive techniques. Never ever tortured anybody. I can tell you that. Would never allow it. Don’t know of any situation in which the F.B.I. did it.’’

“And then, please have a better view of the men and women who serve you in law enforcement and in the intelligence services.’’

(Applause)

‘’I know the liberal media paints them like, you know – These are the good guys, not the bad guys. They really are. I mean these are the people who put their lives at risk to protect you and me. These are people of scruples, honor, decency. They don’t want to torture anybody. They have no desire to harm anybody. What they are dealing with sometimes are these enormously difficult life and death situations, in which there is a possibility of getting information about a group of troops that are going to be killed, and they’re going to have to go tell their mothers and fathers that they were killed and there’s a chance maybe of stopping it. Or there are these – I mean, suppose some of the people who were going to do Sept. 11 had been captured beforehand. We sure as heck would want some very aggressive questioning to find out what they knew.’’

“So let’s be careful on how we define this. And, sure we should be against torture. But we should not be against aggressive questioning. And the line between the two is going to require some really difficult decisions about drawing it and kind of trusting each other with the discretion for the president to make decisions about what has to be done in the interests of the American people.’’

“I have known every American president since Gerald Ford. I knew Richard Nixon, but before he was president. I met him, I didn’t know him. I can’t say I knew Richard Nixon. But I’ve known every American president since Gerald Ford. Some Republicans, some Democrats. I can’t think of a one that would ever want to see somebody tortured. Also can’t think of a one that wouldn’t have the courage to make some tough decisions to protect the lives of the American people. And that’s the kind of person you have to have as president of the United States.’’
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-25-2007, 06:08 PM   #438
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 07:39 PM
BLUFFTON, South Carolina (CNN) — At a campaign stop in South Carolina Wednesday, Fred Thompson said that the Iraqi insurgency is made up of "a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices," and suggested that the appearance of losing to such an enemy would harm U.S. national security.

Thompson was confronted about Iraq by a Bluffton resident named Bernhard Steinhouse, who asked Thompson whether he would bring back U.S. forces from the country.

"We will not be a safer country, we will not be a safer America if the whole world watches us being defeated by a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices," Thompson said.

Roadside bombs are one of the leading causes of U.S. casualties in Iraq.

Thompson's comments drew criticism from Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate and senator from Delaware who has made funding mine-resistant combat vehicles a signature of his Senate efforts over the last year.

"If Sen. Thompson believes that we are fighting 'a bunch of kids,' he is totally divorced from reality," Biden said in a statement Thursday. "He should come back to Iraq with me and talk to our soldiers who are in the middle of a civil war between lethal militias or fighting the Bush-fulfilling prophecy of al Qaeda in Iraq or being blown up by IEDs."

Thompson did not say under what circumstances troops would be able to leave Iraq. He said that as of now, U.S. forces are succeeding in securing the country, a shared sentiment among all of the Republican presidential frontrunners, mainly by Sen. John McCain. He noted that things could change.

"As of right now, and circumstances will be different six months from now, a year from now, but as of right now, we're finally getting good news out of there, we're getting good news," said Thompson, who added that having a U.S.
presence in Iraq is crucial to freezing out the influence of Iran and Iranian-linked Hezbollah.

"They sent General Petraeus down there for a reason," he said. "They shouldn't have sent him down there if it was just a matter of saying, 'OK, you're doing a lot better, but we're going to declare defeat and bring you home.' I don't think that makes us safer."

Thompson told Steinhouse "we didn't know what we were facing" when we went into Iraq.

"Saddam lured everybody into believing he had weapons of mass destruction, which he had had previously, no question about it, he had used them against his own people," Thompson said.

Earlier this month in Iowa, Thompson raised eyebrows by telling a crowd that Saddam "clearly had had WMD" and that "he clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program." He later clarified that he was referring to Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-25-2007, 06:22 PM   #439
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 01:39 AM
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Yeah, those kids with their improvised explosive devices.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 10-25-2007, 06:29 PM   #440
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 07:39 PM
Wow, he's an idiot.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 09:46 AM   #441
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 07:39 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton says it has been worth it to stand by her man, Bill Clinton, despite the marital challenges they have faced.

Their marriage was rocked in 1998 when it was revealed that President Bill Clinton had had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, which set off an extended drama that led to his impeachment and a failed attempt to remove him from office.

Hillary Clinton, a senator from New York, talked about her relationship with Bill in an interview with Essence magazine for its November issue. Some people have wondered over the years why she has stood by Clinton, who also had been accused of sexual improprieties by other women.

"I know the truth of my life and of my marriage, my relationship and partnership, my deep abiding friendship with my husband," Clinton said, according to interview excerpts published on www.essence.com. "It's been enormously supportive to me through most of my life.

"Now obviously we've had challenges as everybody in the world knows. But I never doubted that it was a marriage worth investing in, even in the midst of those challenges, and I'm really happy that I made that decision."

Clinton said it was "not a decision for everybody. And I think it's so important for women to stand up for the right of women to make a decision that is best for them."

Many Republicans believe Americans will not want to return the Clintons to the White House and will take the Lewinsky scandal into account when voting for a president in November 2008.

A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll suggested that at least among Democrats, the issue is not that big a deal.

The poll found that 42 percent of Democrats agreed that it was the "right thing" for Clinton to stick with her husband after the Lewinsky affair, compared with 5 percent who said it was the wrong choice.

More than seven in 10 Democrats and about half of all voters said they would welcome a White House advisory role for Bill Clinton, the poll found.

The poll also said Hillary Clinton remained a polarizing figure, viewed unfavorably by 44 percent of respondents and favorably by 48 percent.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 09:59 AM   #442
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
BLUFFTON, South Carolina (CNN) — At a campaign stop in South Carolina Wednesday, Fred Thompson said that the Iraqi insurgency is made up of "a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices," and suggested that the appearance of losing to such an enemy would harm U.S. national security.

Thompson was confronted about Iraq by a Bluffton resident named Bernhard Steinhouse, who asked Thompson whether he would bring back U.S. forces from the country.

"We will not be a safer country, we will not be a safer America if the whole world watches us being defeated by a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices," Thompson said.

Roadside bombs are one of the leading causes of U.S. casualties in Iraq.

Thompson's comments drew criticism from Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate and senator from Delaware who has made funding mine-resistant combat vehicles a signature of his Senate efforts over the last year.

"If Sen. Thompson believes that we are fighting 'a bunch of kids,' he is totally divorced from reality," Biden said in a statement Thursday. "He should come back to Iraq with me and talk to our soldiers who are in the middle of a civil war between lethal militias or fighting the Bush-fulfilling prophecy of al Qaeda in Iraq or being blown up by IEDs."

Thompson did not say under what circumstances troops would be able to leave Iraq. He said that as of now, U.S. forces are succeeding in securing the country, a shared sentiment among all of the Republican presidential frontrunners, mainly by Sen. John McCain. He noted that things could change.

"As of right now, and circumstances will be different six months from now, a year from now, but as of right now, we're finally getting good news out of there, we're getting good news," said Thompson, who added that having a U.S.
presence in Iraq is crucial to freezing out the influence of Iran and Iranian-linked Hezbollah.

"They sent General Petraeus down there for a reason," he said. "They shouldn't have sent him down there if it was just a matter of saying, 'OK, you're doing a lot better, but we're going to declare defeat and bring you home.' I don't think that makes us safer."

Thompson told Steinhouse "we didn't know what we were facing" when we went into Iraq.

"Saddam lured everybody into believing he had weapons of mass destruction, which he had had previously, no question about it, he had used them against his own people," Thompson said.

Earlier this month in Iowa, Thompson raised eyebrows by telling a crowd that Saddam "clearly had had WMD" and that "he clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program." He later clarified that he was referring to Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds.
The 15 year old who waited on me at Taco Bell last night is more qualified to lead our country than this guy.


Sorry to insult the intelligence of 15 year olds.
__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 10:08 AM   #443
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:39 AM
The Lewinsky thing was blown up. I thought it was stupid. And Hillary didn't do it, her husband did. So it shouldn't be an issue when you're looking at her.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 10:10 AM   #444
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:39 AM
Thompson is a klutz. He can't remember anything, and everyone knows that Saddam didn't have WMD's.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 12:33 PM   #445
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:39 AM
No, Saddam most certainly did have chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear program more advanced than anybody suspected until after being expelled from Kuwait. The tactic then switched to a strategic ambiguity of obfuscating inspectors to keep neighbouring powers guessing with the long term aim of reactivating when sanctions were lifted.

Stating that Saddam lured everybody into believing that he had WMD is exactly the same line of argument put forth by Rolf Ekeus.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 03:05 PM   #446
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:39 PM
Quote:
"Saddam lured everybody into believing he had weapons of mass destruction, which he had had previously, no question about it, he had used them against his own people," Thompson said.
I think this is a basic intelligence test.


Saddam's regime used weapons to kill groups that were trying to topple the Iraqi government.

Groups that received support from Iran.
Iraq had just fought a 10 year war Iran.


This current Iraqi Government is perhaps even more guilty of using weapons and killing their own people
and they have close associations and relationships with Iran.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 03:11 PM   #447
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:39 AM
Rational genocide
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 07:27 PM   #448
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:39 PM
Quote:
GOP Field Merits Nitpicking - Even Reagan was not really Reagan



By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | October 25, 2007 4:30 PM PT

Major grumbling among conservatives about the Republican field. So many candidates, so many flaws. Rudy Giuliani, abortion apostate. Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. John McCain, Mr. Amnesty. Fred Thompson, lazy boy. Where is the paragon? Where is Ronald Reagan?

Well, what about Reagan? This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent.

What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the past quarter-century.

The point is not to denigrate Reagan but to bring a little realism to the gauzy idol worship that fuels today's discontent.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 08:09 PM   #449
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 07:39 PM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ary-fundraiser


And of course, is there anyone better to preach to people about self-control than Bill Clinton?
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 09:16 PM   #450
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

And of course, is there anyone better to preach to people about self-control than Bill Clinton?
Jesus said to forgive...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com