>>>>>>>>Of course position and responsibility is everything:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/36234
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which seems to indicate that, at the time the numbers were reported, Obama's staff had more men in senior positions than women, which accounts for the disparity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And which is where there should be some parity, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>>If he only employed men, or employed women only in clerical positions while men had leadership positions, sure, there'd be a question. But in any endeavor, at any given time, there will be some mix of men and women in various positions. I'd expect the composition to change over time as people come and go. (And, of course, the salary issue depends on how long people have been there, as well as their positions.)
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>People can only be there as long as the campaign lasts (or until the election)... While your argument may work for a longstanding organization, it doesn't really work here. It is short term employment. I guess we will have to see who he fills his cabinet positions with when he is elected, because he will be elected.
>>>>
>>>>It there were not highly qualified women for him to chose from for his campaign, then are you suggesting there were none available? I thought it was the educated who were voting for and supporting him?
>>>
>>>I have no doubt there will be plenty of women in an Obama administration, if he wins, both on the White House staff and in cabinet and other high level positions. It seems like much ado over nothing to get worked up over a pay disparity on his campaign staff. As you say, it's a short term organization.
>>>
>>>If nothing else he would never hear the end of it from Michelle, don't you think?
>>
>>ROFL... :o)
>
>Actually I was being serious for once. You get the impression of a woman who brooks no nonsense or unfairness.

She comes across as a woman I'd love to know. In fact, both Obamas are high on my "who would you invite to a dinner party?" scale.

Tamar