Great timing Megan. I just today decided to "get to know the White House staff", (even though I'm not American) and have made tentative searches on them all. Lots to read. Any chance of more write ups about the other women on the staff? That would be awesome.
Jarrett sounds amazing, but it was incredibly frustrating to read about how much typical white dude bullshit she faced within Obama's campaign. At least to me, the reasons Plouffe, Axelrod, and Emmanuel dislike her sound flimsy, even ridiculous, and more like sexist backlash than legitimate complaints. It's getting harder and harder to think of the Democrats as the better ones, or even as the lesser of two evils.
@somedisaster: I'm disappointed to hear there was some seeming sexist BS from Emmanuel. We were all touting him as so hawt earlier this year, and a real hard hitter as CoS.
@somedisaster: I definitely agree that those dudes came across as dicks. But I can also see being annoyed at the presence of a free agent who is accountable only to the top. Imagine if it were an article about a Bush staffer who goes wherever and does whatever to keep Bush in touch with the Texan mentality, I'd be ralphing and calling it a constitutional crisis.
@J.D.Regent: Oh, I can definitely hear your criticism. I just don't think that's the criticism that Plouffe and Emmanuel and Axelrod were making- especially when it comes to stuff like Emmanuel being peeved over something that seems ridiculously unimportant in the grand scheme of things, or Axelrod excluding her from his "hard core politics" meetings. Those seem more like sexist slights than legit criticisms of her lack of accountability. It might just be that I'm super sensitive about this kind of stuff, because it happens so fucking much.
Another thing to consider is that I think her unique position to remind Obama and his staff of the effect of public policy on women, POC, etc. supercedes any concern about her accountability. I have a hard time getting up in arms about her reporting only to Obama when she seems to be doing so much unequivocal good and making POC staffers feel so much more comfortable, because I think that's such an important function of any supposedly progressive presidency.
"Without Jarrett, these officials said they believed, their opinions and the often-legitimate concerns voiced by black leaders like Sharpton would have been thoroughly disregarded by the white-dominated senior staff. "There's a cultural nuance that they just didn't get,"
Things always seem to go back to the same, to the fact that there's a majority of people who simply can't conceive not only that there are paradigms and points of view other than their own (the standard), but that there are whole segments of the population who might feel uncomfortable with notions they deem harmless, uncomfort usually dismissed as "over-sensitivity". Nuances, indeed, that so many people can't or don't want to see.
I assume that said nuances play a big role in the feathers ruffled by Jarrett.
That was really uncalled for. So because you don't agree with what a woman says, you can call her a bitch in public. When it was Hilary Clinton, women were marching in the streets. It has to be all or none; either all women deserve respect or none do. I've heard way more about this Miss California than is even remotely necessary. She's a bigot. You don't have to look to far to find one of those (check out any thread about Catholics). So let this sad little person fade back into the woodwork (or onto Fox) where she belongs.
And btw, some women do not deserve respect just as some men do not deserve respect. I'm not going to spit on them or debase them, but, some people waste their credibility and lose the respect of others. See Joe Francis. I have zero respect for him. I'll call him a pig, happily.
@lolacat: Those sweeping generalizations make snappy comments but don't often work in real life. Obviously Mr. Axelrod agrees with you. That's unfortunate when coupled with a desire to flap his gums without thinking.
1. This was the 'sweeping' generalization: "It has to be all or none; either all women deserve respect or none do." When I used the word "some" I meant "less than ALL" which is generally considered to be less than 'sweeping'.
2. Lovely. As compared to a less than REAL lowlife? I get it you think I'm a scumbag but can't say it or you'll get a detention or some such. REAL clever.
Additionally, WHY must we keep this woman in the news? Is this a name-drop to show you are "with it" and down with what they're talking about on the Today show?
Miss California is crazy and reactionary. That is enough to hate on. But because she is a woman, this liberal man thinks calling her a dog is okay, her looks are fair game. And even though you might be a liberal, that means Axlerod thinks publicly calling you ugly for no apparent reason is totally okay.
I see, because she is speaking out on GOP type shows and aligning herself with Palin, we take a whack at the poor, implanted beauty queen. This is so far beneath the White House.
Is that sexism really, or just making fun of Miss CA specifically? I know comparing some to dogs is touchy, but people on this website make fun of her all the time. Not a smart move, but it comes across to me as against her politics, not her gender.
@emily.jayne: Doesn't matter. All it will look like is Sean Hannity & Bill O'Reilly and a bunch of other people whose voices give me nightmares screaming about how the White House is picking on this lovely girl whose Grandfather fought in the Battle of the Bulge, blah blah blah
07/23/09
THIS is what a pitbull in lipstick looks like.
love,
Attila
07/23/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
Another thing to consider is that I think her unique position to remind Obama and his staff of the effect of public policy on women, POC, etc. supercedes any concern about her accountability. I have a hard time getting up in arms about her reporting only to Obama when she seems to be doing so much unequivocal good and making POC staffers feel so much more comfortable, because I think that's such an important function of any supposedly progressive presidency.
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
Things always seem to go back to the same, to the fact that there's a majority of people who simply can't conceive not only that there are paradigms and points of view other than their own (the standard), but that there are whole segments of the population who might feel uncomfortable with notions they deem harmless, uncomfort usually dismissed as "over-sensitivity". Nuances, indeed, that so many people can't or don't want to see.
I assume that said nuances play a big role in the feathers ruffled by Jarrett.
07/22/09
07/22/09
05/15/09
05/15/09
And btw, some women do not deserve respect just as some men do not deserve respect. I'm not going to spit on them or debase them, but, some people waste their credibility and lose the respect of others. See Joe Francis. I have zero respect for him. I'll call him a pig, happily.
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/16/09
1. This was the 'sweeping' generalization: "It has to be all or none; either all women deserve respect or none do." When I used the word "some" I meant "less than ALL" which is generally considered to be less than 'sweeping'.
2. Lovely. As compared to a less than REAL lowlife? I get it you think I'm a scumbag but can't say it or you'll get a detention or some such. REAL clever.
05/15/09
05/15/09
Additionally, WHY must we keep this woman in the news? Is this a name-drop to show you are "with it" and down with what they're talking about on the Today show?
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/15/09