From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Re: Appointments & Perceptions
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:06:56 GMT
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Dec22.200150.19350@osf.org>, Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes...
>I read in the papers today that Clinton is supposedly taking a
>lot of heat from women's groups for not appointing more women
>to his cabinet.  What groups are protesting?

It seems that a couple of women who appeared on some talk shows
representing a couple of women's groups did the loud complaining.
(I'm sorry, I can't remember the names)
But, most of the women's groups distanced themselves from these 
remarks.

>It seems to me
>the women's groups will be slammed for protesting, as it will
>appear that they are in favor of quota appointments.  Does
>anyone have any more info on this?

They have not been slammed so much as downplayed by other women's
leaders.  The big problem in having 50% or more of the cabinet
made up women, as a NOW leader aptly pointed out, is that you need 
a "Decade of the Woman" rather then just a "Year of the Woman".
See, if Clinton wanted to just fill a quota, he could have picked
50% women.  But, as the NOW leader said, he wanted women that fit
in with his goals, could fit in with his team of a cabinet, AND that 
were highly qualified for the job.  Unfortunatly, within these
narrow constraints, there just aren't THAT many women that fit them.
Especially within high government and high private sector positions.
Note, that I am not talking simply about highly qualified women,
my point is that there aren't enough women that fit in with Clinton's
other constraints.  If he could have appointed more than 4 women,
he would have.  Remember he started out ON HIS OWN to appoint a
cabinet "that looks like America", and he certainly made an incredible
effort. So, one of the things that Clinton is trying
to do is appoint a lot of women to ALL levels of the administration,
so that in the future of his administration and other Democratic ones
there are enough women in the ranks to draw from to appoint to higher
positions.  I mean having ONE 4 year term out the last 24 years
be a Democratic one, has certainly hurt this cause.  But, Clinton's
eight years, will certainly set up the 50% and beyond numbers in
the future.

>Clinton, smart pol that he is, appears to have preemptively
>turned this to his advantage.  He 'got angry' at the groups
>(again - what groups?) and accused them of being bean counters.
> He seems to gain points in the media for being willing to
>stand up to one of the traditional dem. interest groups.   

Besides accusing "some women, of some groups" (his words) of being
bean counters, he also made a VERY important point. That the women
doing the complaining, are overlooking an important thing, that the 
numbers aren't the only important thing.  The important thing, is how
much real power and input the women have in the administration,
rather than being "token" apointments.  This would be a major step
forward from the tokenism of the past.  I don't think he gained many 
points at all with the media actually, as usual the media hears what they
want to hear.  Even though he denied that he was being pressured by 
interest groups, the media still reported "Clinton appointed a woman
to the Energy post because of pressure" and "Clinton says he's against
quotas, but curiously says 4 women will be in the cabinet". 

-Chris