home

Judith Warner's Memo to Maureen Dowd

NYTimes' Judith Warner:

[A] peculiarly gendered form of trivializing scorn still tags our secretary of state. Just two weeks ago, The Washington Post had to remove from its Web site an ostensibly humorous video sketch by two of its prominent political journalists that juxtaposed a picture of Clinton’s face with a bottle of derogatorily named beer. This sort of thing bodes badly for the country’s ability to treat her — and the issues she most passionately champions — with appropriate respect.

“We have our own work to do at home,” [Melanne Verveer, the State Department’s new ambassador at large for global women’s issues,] told me. “We trivialize the importance too often of these issues: the ‘women’s issue’ — you put it in quotes, that little category over there, the box you check. What we have to do is realize these are the issues; if we want societies to prosper and if we want our own security, we have to raise the status of women.” . . . Can all this complexity attract — much less sustain — the attention of the public?

Maybe — if we stop viewing everything Clinton does as entertainment.

This piece seems directed at Maureen Dowd.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yup, it does seem directed ... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:27:22 AM EST
    at Dowd's recent column, especially at this bit:

    At Tuesday's State Department briefing, Assistant Secretary P.J. Crowley explained that Hillary was particularly irritated to feel overshadowed by men in Africa, where she is pushing her "abiding theme" of "empowering women."

    Nice try, P.J. But we all know Hillary could just as well have made the same comment in Paris. (And looking unhinged about your marriage on an international stage hardly empowers women.)

    One could write an essay about everything that's wrong with these two 'graphs.  And, it seems, Judith Warner did.


    Hmmm... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Addison on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:32:54 AM EST
    So then, Maureen, looking unhinged on the op-ed page of a formerly great newspaper; who exactly does that empower?

    Parent
    Exactly! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:38:38 AM EST
    Dowd and anyone (none / 0) (#12)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:54:06 AM EST
    who shares her point of view - that tabloid style gossip and substantial issues are equally significant and relevant.  

    Parent
    "who exactly does that empower" (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:56:25 AM EST
    Maureen Dowd mostly

    Parent
    It's choice excerpts like that (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:43:47 AM EST
    that make me want to call Dowd "another Ann Coulter".

    Parent
    al teast Coulter (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:03:03 AM EST
    seems to believe in something however vile it might be.


    Parent
    Dowd believes in herself (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:05:25 AM EST
    Which may or may not be more vile than what Coulter believes in, I can not say.


    Parent
    The problem with Warner's piece (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:03:56 AM EST
    and it's because she's aiming at the Dowdies, is that it ends up as part of the larger problem of media treatment of HRS as SoS in general:  Warner and others are distracting from all else that HRC is doing on this trip.  HRC is not distracted and is making significant statements and holding significant meetings on women's issues there.

    The good reporting on this trip, on this agenda, can be found.  Not in the media, and not on many blogs that also are too easily distracted and manipulated, but on some blogs worth seeking out.

    Parent

    I see your point (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:32:39 AM EST
    But this - the media sexism and misogyny, is also an important story.

    I think your criticism of Warner, and I guess me too, is unfair.

    Parent

    Yes, it is a story (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:39:51 AM EST
    that needs reporting, and it is good that you continue to do so (as do so few "liberal" bloggers with such consistency).

    But so is the story of what HRC is accomplishing, and I would bet that you might want to do both, because that would go beyond media criticism to the metastory of sexism and misogyny -- and of the first serious work by an American official to do more than wring hands about it.

    I appreciate that you take this criticism civilly, and I also think that because you understand all this, you might want to take a look, for starters, at Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! blog for the interview with Christine Shuler Deschryver, with whom HRC is working there.  

    Parent

    This is a struggle for me (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    I agree with you on this, but it's the age old problem of:  does addressing a problem impede your ability to see past the problem and focus on real progress?

    There is something happening in my life right now that is similiar.

    I just want to be truthful, and I know Dowd lies.


    Parent

    I'm not sure I understand (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:43:27 AM EST
    your understandably somewhat abstract comment, as I have been there, too.  So I wish you the best in coping and countering whatever/whomever is causing your current struggle.

    Remember, if you're still standing at the end, that's a victory in itself -- a sort of "wild justice," as I recall from a book given to me by good women to get me through some struggles.  (The term and title taken from a great quote from Bacon.)

    Parent

    An employer has lied about me (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    I am considering exposing that lie (which I can do, I have evidence) but I've been advised by other managers that that indicates I'm unwilling to put the situation behind me.

    This isn't the place to discuss my personal issues, but that gives more info as to why I look at this situation differently.

    To focus on the topic at hand, if you look below at the comments provided by lilburro, Dowd is lying.


    Parent

    Been there (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    and you're getting good counsel; I have had to pick my fights, too.  The opportunity costs lost in our work and our time with what matters, our friends and family, can be so high.  I do understand.

    But I did fight some fights, so I'm still standing while others got a lesson that slowed and even stopped them from coming after me and/or looking for yet more targets, and thus I hope that you also find counsel that explores all sides of this decision for you.  I greatly appreciate a lot of your comments here; you're one of the good guys.:-)

    Parent

    Arrggh! (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:16:49 AM EST
    My profound sympathies.

    One of the things I found most difficult to take in the corporate world is that, generally speaking, men seem perfectly willing to shrug this kind of thing off and continue to work and even bond with the "evil doer" in aid of their careers, while we women are appalled and PO'd and indignant and find it nearly impossible to trust such people enough to work with them even politely.

    Wrong is wrong, and I could not swallow that kind of thing with good grace.  Which is why I ended up living on the financial edge as a self-employed freelancer, but with peace of mind.

    Good luck.  The advice you've been given is probably right-- unfortunately.

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:21:02 AM EST
    much for the kind words.  I know my situation is not uncommon.

    Parent
    There is no way... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Addison on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:30:12 AM EST
    ...that America in this climate is having a complex discussion about the fact that women's issues are human rights issues. I don't think the US is going to have an human rights discussions of any kind for a while yet. The American public forum seems smashed all to hell, irrespective of the media's continued Clinton hackery/insanity.

    And while I wish Hillary Clinton could be viewed as a person instead of a prop in journalists' personal psychodramas -- Clinton is clearly one of the modern giants of world politics -- I think it's really more a symptom of the larger fact that a journalistic corps of ambitious, clubby, entitled, completely and totally safe ivy leaguers is a terrible, terrible idea, and we won't have a proper national media until the national media is somewhat reflective of America.

    I mean, who but these nuts have the mental leisure time for Hillary Clinton-bashing these days? It's the modern "intellectual" equivalent of the (fictional, but evocative) Roman vomitoria.

    Until it gets fixed (which it probably will never be): Dowd is their Queen. Broder their King. And, "whenever monarchs err, the people are punished."

    Dowd is no different than Glenn Beck (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:51:18 AM EST
    she writes what her audience wants to read.

    but I have a solution.  stop reading Maureen Dowd.
    stop talking about her and stop linking to her.  the only power she has is the power we give  her.

    I have not read a Dowd column or clicked on a what I knew was a Dowd link.  and I find I am much happier because of it.

    Reality Media (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:25:32 AM EST
    The day of the journalist is gone with the buggy whip. Today's news media is totally focused on profit. Everything as to be presented as a conflict to add drama to the issue. If there isn't a conflict, the media will do it's best to create it.

    The pathetic aspect of this is that there are major issues facing this country, but rather than dealing with them, the news media prefers to wallow in the gutter.

    As it turns out (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:58:13 AM EST
    regarding Hillary Clinton's response to the question in the Congo, it was indeed translated correctly (NYT):

    It always seemed unlikely to The Lede that a translator working for Mrs. Clinton would make such a large error with a question asked in French -- or that an Afrcian university student would say "Mr. Clinton" when he meant "Mr. Obama" -- and my colleague Jeffrey Gettleman reports in Thursday's New York Times that "further inspection of the audio recording of the event indicated that the translation was fine; the student had indeed said `Mr. Clinton.' " A second reporter traveling with Mrs. Clinton, a friend of your Lede blogger's who is a magazine journalist, said the same thing in an e-mail exchange on Wednesday night, that the student "did ask the question that way: `the mind of Mr. From the lips of Mrs.' "

    Given that it now appears that the question was translated correctly -- and that the male student wanted to know not just what Bill Clinton thought of Chinese relations with Congo but also what the former N.B.A. star Dikembe Mutumbo, who was present at the event, thought, too, but expressed no interest in the perspective of America's female secretary of state -- is it possible that Mrs. Clinton has gotten a raw deal from commentators in the United States for her angry reply?

    So will that be covered in the media?  Especially in view of the fact that it was translated correctly, and the audience heard the same question she did, Hillary Clinton's response was absolutely an excellent one.

    Additionally (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:00:22 AM EST
    this makes Dowd's column all the more hateful:

    It turned out that the student was trying to ask how President Obama felt about it. But before he was able to clarify, the secretary of state flared: "Wait, you want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the secretary of state. I am."[emphasis supplied]

    Able to clarify?  Well that was a complete fabrication on Dowd's part.  You don't get to make up the facts Dowd.

    Parent

    Thanks for the link (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:43:57 AM EST
    I wrote a post about it - well sort of just wrote a post linking to it.

    Parent
    Np (none / 0) (#40)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:49:35 AM EST
    hopefully this will get a lot of coverage.  

    Parent
    And I hope there's tracking back (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:52:16 AM EST
    to determine who in the press pool (I detect the odor of AP:-) misreported this in the first place to diminish our SoS and distract the media pack.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    admittedly (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:57:42 AM EST
    I do not know French, nor was I there, unlike Maureen Dowd (eyeroll) but it logically makes no sense - "Obama" and "Clinton" do not sound the same.  If you heard the question wouldn't you hear Obama's name?  

    Parent
    That's what bothered me (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:12:43 AM EST
    I don't speak French either, but wouldn't their names stay the same no matter what language one was speaking?

    I thought the question was fairly blatant. 'From his mind through your mouth' is pretty darn clear to me. I give her props for not starting her response with "WTF?!"

    Parent

    Haha (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:26:14 AM EST
    I certainly would've!  Which really is another reason why this response is a good example of how to react to sexist treatment.  I tend to fly off the handle (which is justified) but HRC was really able to get her message across.  Something that was important to do, esp in that forum, without unleashing a torrent of insults!

    Parent
    "The president" (none / 0) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:25:29 AM EST
    Depending on the context, it could be possible the questioner used the term "the president," not the actual name, in a way that seemed to refer to Clinton when he meant Obama.  That's what I had assumed had happened anyway.

    I really don't get any of this.  Who put out the story that it was a mistaken translation to begin with??

    Parent

    According to NYT (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:40:44 AM EST
    Later, her aides released the transcript of the question, as it had been translated to English from French, and further inspection of the audio recording of the event indicated that the translation was fine; the student had indeed said "Mr. Clinton."

    link


    Parent
    CNN says (none / 0) (#51)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    "pool reporters in the room" (link).  I have to watch the video again but can't right now.

    Parent
    Isn't that kinda like (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:41:41 AM EST
    "some people say"?

    Parent
    Dowd is definitely the Queen Bee (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:26:26 AM EST
    of the Village, but I just gotta add Andrea Mitchell to the list.  Her reporting on the Clinton trip to Africa dripped with gossipy disdain.
    She really, really has a bug up her behind about the Clintons.

    A good essay. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:38:34 AM EST
    The comments are revealing also mostly arguing about Clinton and less about the importance of women and women's rights.

    This is why I supported Obama (none / 0) (#6)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:39:38 AM EST
    Because I knew America would treat a Clinton administration as entertainment.

    I tried to support Obama for that reason and speak out against treating Clinton as entertainment at the same time and sometimes I looked a little foolish.

    But that's what happens in the world.  Even though we know some things are wrong we still have to make our decisions ...... in the world we know exists, not the world we wish existed.

    Dowd will not change.  She will just take this as an opportunity to demean more real issues.

    The problem (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:45:05 AM EST
    isn't Clinton.  It's the media and the culture that the media enables.

    Parent
    No doubt (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:47:59 AM EST
    But that problem still exists, and while I spoke out against it, i still supported Obama because of it, which is why I looked a little foolish at times.


    Parent
    Yup, Krugman quoted a section of ... (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:52:54 AM EST
    a column he wrote back in '08 about this whole issue.  But I think another section of that essay is equally apropos:

    Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.

    This bitter partisanship wasn't the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.

    Then you can move onto the section he quoted today:

    First, those who don't want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don't want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s -- a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy -- are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can't bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

    The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn't one of them.

    With Birthers and Deathers getting national attention.  Can anyone doubt he was right?

    Parent

    So very true. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:00:21 AM EST
    Krugman isn't alone.  We know that it happened to Carter and to the Clintons and that it would happen to Obama too.  

    Parent
    the extent to which they can turn (none / 0) (#17)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:08:39 AM EST
    Obama into a caricature is mitigated.

    Parent
    Not mitigated, merely delayed. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:20:34 AM EST
    They have decades of preparation and practice with the Clintons.  Obama has the advantage of a lull before the machine cranks up to speed on him.

    I get the feeling that Obama thinks he will be an exception.  I'm not sure why.  The Clintons have learned to watch their backs and watch their words very carefully - precisely because of the media's habit of pouncing on any clumsy phrase or outburst.  

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:22:33 AM EST
    It's mitigated, and will be throughout.

    Making a caricature of an African American is called racism.

    Making a caricature of a woman is called good ratings.


    Parent

    I would (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:30:47 AM EST
    be very surprised if they didnt make fun of Obama. It would probably be the first time that had ever happened to a President. Of course, none of this is really helping him much.

    Parent
    they'll do it (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:34:53 AM EST
    my argument is that it will be held in check.

    and not because Obama intrinsically knows how to keep the media in check.

    It will be held in check because of historical and contextual considerations, and most of us agree with those historical and contextual considerations.


    Parent

    Well except for... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by trillian on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:32:06 AM EST
    ...the picture of Obama as Hitler,I assume?

    The fact that they will go easy on him because he is African American is a fallacy.

    Parent

    Main Stream Media (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:35:49 AM EST
    Yes.  Tabloid journalism will treat Obama the same way they treated Clinton and Bush.


    Parent
    "Obamacare"? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:36:48 AM EST
    I think it's brilliant framing.  It both pins HCR squarely on Obama and is used as a derogative by the opponents.  (It also subverts Obama's attempt to push the job off on Congress.)

    You don't need to be racist to be brutally efficient at dragging someone down.  All you need to do is to take every advantage you can get.  McCain didn't do that, he passed on a few opportunities to get in the gutter.

    But now?
    It's a four year campaign to position the Republicans as the better option.  The 2008 election season was the honeymoon.

    Parent

    And to be fair (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:41:11 AM EST
    Obama had a relatively easy time with the media, precisely because they didn't like Clinton or McCain.  The press gave him EVERY advantage and benefit of the doubt, and now we see how he handles when people actually dare to disagree with him and criticize him.  He's had very little practice in that.

    Parent
    to be fair (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by CST on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:46:45 AM EST
    the media used to love McCain.  Until he ran against Obama.  So there has to be something else there than them simply disliking McCain.  But I do think that the press has not really helped him in terms of getting an agenda pass.  The media does seem to resist real "change" almost as much as the republicans do.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:58:19 AM EST
    but they ADORED Obama.  He was new and fresh, and they hadn't covered him in the Senate (since he hadn't been there long), and oh by the way, he's black!  They could say "Look how progressive and hip we are!  McCain is yesterday's news!"


    Parent
    And don't forget (none / 0) (#54)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:44:24 AM EST
    that by the time McCain ran a general election campaign, he was vewy, vewy old.

    ...the media likes to satisfy that 25-54 demo....new, hip, AA and young! (for a presidential contender).

    Parent

    I'm not saying there's no criticism (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:43:44 AM EST
    They will attack, all I'm saying is that there are places they won't go with that attack that the could go with a woman.


    Parent
    There is more than one variable (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:53:18 AM EST
    Who can deal with it better?
    and
    Who will draw more fire?

    You need more than lucky breaks.  You need a good defensive strategy as well.

    Parent

    Well if it helps discussion (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:02:46 AM EST
    I'm more than willing to agree that I am only pointing out one variable.

    I still think, and this only applies to main stream media, (by that I don't mean Beck or Linbaugh, by that I mean Blitzer and Brian Williams,) I still think you could say Hillary's handling of health was due to periodic moodiness and people would cheer.

    Obama will never have to deal with something like that in the main stream media.


    Parent