Clinton says half her Cabinet will be women

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Remember, topics on women inevitably ends in a cringeworthy s**tsnow. Just like topics on Israel.

[SillyAmerican]

I find it hilarious that so many people in this thread think Hillary can't find less than a dozen qualified women for cabinet positions, and therefore will be putting in unqualified ones solely to fill a quota.

In the words of Obama, we don't need a bunch of binders in order to find qualified women!

Okay, so you'd be fine with a candidate saying "90% of my cabinet will be men"? If not, why not? Then take that "why not", and apply it to what Hillary Clinton said about 50% of her cabinet being women. Frankly, I find it appalling that any serious candidate would make such a dangerous statement. It's utterly wrong, and I would have thought someone who is supposedly fighting for women and minorities would know better.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I find it hilarious that so many people in this thread think Hillary can't find less than a dozen qualified women for cabinet positions, and therefore will be putting in unqualified ones solely to fill a quota.

In the words of Obama, we don't need a bunch of binders in order to find qualified women!

Okay, so you'd be fine with a candidate saying "90% of my cabinet will be men"? If not, why not? Then take that "why not", and apply it to what Hillary Clinton said about 50% of her cabinet being women. Frankly, I find it appalling that any serious candidate would make such a dangerous statement. It's utterly wrong, and I would have thought someone who is supposedly fighting for women and minorities would know better.

One of those statements is representative of the population and one isn't. It's mind-boggling that you'd think they're equivalent.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Senate may or may not have thoughts on that.

And how do you think it would look for the Senate to reject Cabinet appointees because they have some sort of problem with the President's intended gender balance?

[SillyAmerican]

The Senate may or may not have thoughts on that.

And how do you think it would look for the Senate to reject Cabinet appointees because they have some sort of problem with the President's intended gender balance?

Those in the Senate should not look at a candidate's gender. Neither should the President making the nomination. Was I not clear in saying what I said?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Senate may or may not have thoughts on that.

And how do you think it would look for the Senate to reject Cabinet appointees because they have some sort of problem with the President's intended gender balance?

Those in the Senate should not look at a candidate's gender. Neither should the President making the nomination. Was I not clear in saying what I said?

The President is going to be looking at candidates' gender either consciously or subconsciously, and, if it's conscious, is going to either admit or not admit to doing it. In this case, I would prefer that it be conscious and admitted.

[ProudModerate2]

I find it hilarious that so many people in this thread think Hillary can't find less than a dozen qualified women for cabinet positions, and therefore will be putting in unqualified ones solely to fill a quota.

In the words of Obama, we don't need a bunch of binders in order to find qualified women!

Okay, so you'd be fine with a candidate saying "90% of my cabinet will be men"? If not, why not? Then take that "why not", and apply it to what Hillary Clinton said about 50% of her cabinet being women. Frankly, I find it appalling that any serious candidate would make such a dangerous statement. It's utterly wrong, and I would have thought someone who is supposedly fighting for women and minorities would know better.

One of those statements is representative of the population and one isn't. It's mind-boggling that you'd think they're equivalent.

Exactly.
How can you (SillyAmerican) compare your "90% men" comment, to "50% women."
That is "silly."

[ProudModerate2]

Here is the correct answer for this entire thread ....

Good. I believe that Clinton's cabinet could be all men, or all women; I don't care as long as they can perform their jobs in a competent manner.

[elcorazon]

There aren't many women at the very top levels of government, academia and industry... so lets not put women in positions at the very top levels of government, academia and industry. OK. Even though there's plenty of vastly over qualified women working at jobs below their level. Very good, very solid logic. Not circular at all.

I never said not to put them in the top levels of government, academia and industry.  If women deserve it, give them those promotions and put them there.  Being in the cabinet is a promotion ABOVE the upper echelons of government/academia/industry.  What it seems like you're saying is we should skip the cream of the crop and look deeper because there's a lot of women who are working at jobs below their level?  I find it hard to believe that, for instance, the absolute #1 pick for Secretary of Energy won't be found among the small, elite group of energy company CEOs, nobel-prize winning scientists, or governors/congressmen who've made dramatic progress on energy-related issues.  We have several such people in the United States.  Most of them are men.  Should we skip over them and go searching through Solyndra VPs or assistant professors at state universities or random congresswomen on the off chance that one of them has enormous talent that just hasn't been recognized or given the opportunity to blossom?  I'd rather she just pick one of the really really good people.

This is why women continue not to be given a chance. The women can't possibly do worse than all the men that have had high level government positions over the past couple of generations.

[Figueira]

I'd imagine that for every cabinet position (at least the low-profile ones like HUD) there are a lot of people who could do the job adequately, so I think it's fine to have a preference for women.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I have no problem with it being half women.  Of course the field of candidates is smaller among women so the vetting process will be more of a challenge... but I have no doubt there are enough qualified women in each respective field.

Also, it's probably less likely that women are corrupt in these various fields, so that can't be a bad thing.

[IceAgeComing]

I'd imagine that for every cabinet position (at least the low-profile ones like HUD) there are a lot of people who could do the job adequately, so I think it's fine to have a preference for women.

no there is clearly only one "best" version for every job, and conveniently they are all men

That's basically what is being said by the "don't look at gender!!!!" people; since you never hear that in reaction to a predominantly male cabinet.  I wonder why that could be...