Could you obsess about race a little more in the future, Erica? Thanks.

This is absurd...and racist in it's own right.

Could you be more obnoxiously sarcastic Brad? Like, maybe, not witty at all and please word it at an 8th grade level. Thanks.

2: I don't think those words (absurd and racist) mean what you think they mean. Either that or you're just wrong. Heh.

Carollani says: LEAVE ERICA ALONE!!

I'm voting for Richardson, the only person to have a Native American on staff. This makes Tonto smile.

I'd rather be concerned over the level of intelligence in their staffers rather than their race. Sheesh, there's bigger fish to fry but i guess its one lame way to differentiate candidates that pretty much are all different shades of the corporatist agenda.

Do Native Americans have to use the ballot, or can they use smoke signals?

I completely agree that various racial groups deserve fair representation in policymaking. I'm far less keen on treating the presidential campaign as though it were a contest to see who can hire the most nonwhite people. Is this really supposed to say that Clinton is definitely better than Obama or Richardson on racial issues by factor X? All four of the top campaigns there have hired racial minorities disproportionate to their presence in the US population, FWIW.

What is the right answer? Least whites? Most blacks? If you have the minimum number of minorities, do you get credit for extras? Does Hillary get to count all her Asians? Just 'cause, isn't that like cheating? Shouldn't some of her Asians count as white? Do all the non-whites count the same? Even if they are men?

I'm confused and I'm requesting that this all be spelled out more clearly for me. I like the bar graph. Can you make more bar graphs that answer my questions? Thank you, Slog! God bless you, Slog!

This thread is a pretty good example why I urge you never to vote for a white man again. BallardDan and Brian in Seattle won't notice because they're colorblind... Or maybe they would notice if it was suddenly rich white men who had no political power?

This thread is a pretty good example why I urge you never to vote for a white man again.

Step aside, folks - jamier's here to tell you how to vote. Oh, and by the way, you're not allowed to vote for non-rich white men, either, so don't think you've got a loophole there.

They spelled Giuliani wrong.

Comparing the number of minorities and women in presidential campaigns is pretty stupid. But then, so's the fact that Giuliani has no minorities and only one woman. What the fuck is he thinking?

What year is it that hispanics are supposed to become the majority race? Once that happens, tsm, will you care whether any of the presidential candidates have a white staffer, or will you be content like current non-racist African-Americans with your group's one senate seat?

I'd vote for Romney before I'd vote for Jamier.

What year is it that hispanics are supposed to become the majority race? Once that happens, tsm, will you care whether any of the presidential candidates have a white staffer, or will you be content like current non-racist African-Americans with your group's one senate seat?

LOL, non sequitur. If and when Hispanics become the majority, it will not surprise or disturb me in the least to see them holding a majority of campaign jobs. Not would I completely ignore the policies and track records of candidates and simply vote by counting white heads. Because that would be, well, stupid.

Any other questions?

5: It was just a coincidence that I found both of your comments to be retarded.

tsm: Nobody's ignoring candidates' policies and track records. The type of people running a candidates' campaign is one factor out of many to consider when evaluating a candidate. Is Mr. Poe also stupid if he likes a candidate a little bit more because the candidate or some of their staffers are gay?

There's also a difference between a group holding a "minority" of political power and "essentially none." There are 2 asian senators, 2 hispanic senators, and 1 black senator. Guess what race the other 95 are? It wouldn't bother you if there was 1 white senator and 95 hispanic senators? It wouldn't bother you if only one presidential candidate in the 2052 elections has a white staffer, and someone comments, "do whites need to use a pen to vote or can they use Crisco?" It would bother me.

These comments really bugged the crap out of me. The reason that having a staff of various races matter is because having people of various different races provides various points of view. Which is incredibly important when someone is RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

shouldn't it bug even more crap out of you that people would rather judge our candidates by things that serve as surrogates for real issues, rather than the real issues themselves?

i see your point, but it's really sad that we're more fixated on trivial things like this, seemingly only because they can actually be quantified, then regurgitated as though they exist in a 1:1 ratio with unquantifiable things THAT ACTUALLY MATTER. things that unfortunately take more than a pretty, colorful chart to explain. catch me drift?

@18 -

Nobody's ignoring candidates' policies and track records.

Hey, you're the one who said "Never vote for a white man again".

The type of people running a candidates' campaign is one factor out of many to consider when evaluating a candidate. Is Mr. Poe also stupid if he likes a candidate a little bit more because the candidate or some of their staffers are gay?

But analysis like this is just too shallow. Giuliani's all-white staff is problematic, granted, but how on earth does this graph say anything of substance about, say, Richardson vs. Clinton?

To the extent one cares about the racial makeup of campaigns, it's largely because all-white staffs are probably more likely to not think about minority issues when they make policy. But that's the point - what these staffs do is what matters, and what they look like is just an imperfect measure of what they might do. A Republican candidate could hire every black Republican he can find but still fight anti-discrimination statutes, for example.

WOW! I'm completely floored by the fact that people do not find this more concerning.

Playing race off as an insubstantial issue in political decision making is a complete denial that the history of the United States has been founded on racist politics. This isn't about forming a campaign staff with equal representation - it's the idea that people actually have to PROACTIVELY WORK to get equal representation in something as important as a campaign staff.

@7, 21: The fact that people question whether or not these candidates are looking for "intelligent" people to staff their campaigns just confirms the push to deny the supremacy of white people in U.S. politics. Do we really think that Clinton - who has been described as one of the more savvy politicians in this race (especially on Slog) - would hire unqualified or less than intelligent staffers just because she wanted to make the graph look really pretty and colorful?

here's the deal: yes, these numbers are troubling, esp giuliani. however, these numbers are merely SUGGESTIVE, not CONCLUSIVE. whoever created this graph only did half their job, and it was the easy half. this data should be presented with an analysis of where the candidates actually stand on minority issues, otherwise it's just a pretty graph.

personally i find it even more troubling that people are willing to accept this kind of half-assery as legitimate political analysis.