Well, is she denying she talked to authorities not a little because she was pissed at her ex? Is that so wrong? It's not like he wasn't engaging in illegal behavior.
The rest of it, I don't think is about being a woman, it's about her lack of instincts. A press liaison who curses out reporters, can't shut up about her bosses and cuts off a live interview? Anyone who does that crap is going to shat on by the press no matter what their gender. The press will gossip about anything amongst themselves (I know, I am one) and once your name gets around as a person who's a pain to deal with, then the way they treat you after is largely your own doing.
@willwriteforfood: I've never been a Hill reporter but I do work in a similarly small media circle, and no one would last long with that kind of talk. Also, I imagine that any press secretary who "has no filter" is not long for employment.
@PaigeTurner: I read the original article, and I can't get any more context than what the WaPo prints. The quote is not specifically in relation to her job, but anyone who has trouble circumscribing her speech would struggle professionally if her profession is to deal with the Washington press corps.
@PaigeTurner: "You lied! . . . You betrayed him! You twisted his words! . . . We don't know you. You don't exist. . . . You are dead to us."
If that doesn't indicate the absence of a filter, I'm not sure what does.
"The process of recounting her life is a difficult one for Miller. A day after a lengthy conversation at Starbucks, she says by phone: "I'm really feeling awful about talking to you yesterday. . . . I walked out of there saying, 'Emily, Em, he's not your friend, what are you doing?' "
Miller does have a tendency to over-answer questions. "I just have no filter, and I really need to work on that," she says. "If it's in my head, it comes out of my mouth.""
I don't think there's enough here to extrapolate that this quality (if there is even enough here to qualify this as a quality of Miller's- it's one quote) caused her to struggle professionally.
I'm reminded of The Stranger. It's very easy to build a case against someone when we pick and choose instances to judge, and assert meaning where we like.
@willwriteforfood: It didn't matter if she was scorned or not, she talked to the authorities because 2 FBI agents showed up to question her.
Lying to federal agents during an investigation is a federal offense. She had no choice but to tell the truth... even if she did ramble on.
And at the point in the Abramoff investigation where the FBI is interviewing Miller, they probably already have a good case against Abramoff and have an idea of his illegal activities. I highly doubt she was that important to the case to make or break it, despite whatever insinuations the WSJ made or Kurtz for that matter.
It is silly to think that Abramoff was simply brought down by a woman and not by his own hubris at thinking he was above the law
@willwriteforfood: Eh, I kind of think a press liaison who curses and cuts off an interview is usually gunning for a promotion. Reporters don't like it, but bosses do. There are plenty of sweetie pie politicians who hire total freakazoids for the dirty work.
It doesn't sound like she was really worried about being treated badly by the press either.
It seems like what was most disorienting to for Miller is that she was rewarded by her peers and superiors for so long for these same personality traits, then all of a sudden it's, "Well, there was that one interview...." and everyone is using these incidents to justify treating her badly.
Really, the old stories about George W. when he was working on his dad's campaign were far, far worse, and Rahm Emmanuel still brags about sending someone a dead fish. Yet there's all this censure for this woman because she yelled, once? The piling on just feels off to me, even though I can't say I like her either.
@PaigeTurner: As I said, I read the article. There's no need to quote it back to me. Of course we all have to be savvy consumers of all the media we consume, and one article doesn't capture a person's whole life or career.
But that quote is extremely telling for a media professional.
@Clare116: quoting the article wasn't meant as a slight, but rather to show that there is context to what she is saying. that comment comes in response to the "process of recounting her life" to kurtz.
providing the quote in the context of the article was also meant for the other commenters on this thread, in case anyone else chooses to weigh in.
i'm really torn about the way she's being portrayed- there's no way to know how accurate this depiction is. as someone who works around capitol hill, i can tell you that it's a really difficult place for women to navigate and negotiate their place.
@BeckySharper: Maybe she needs a change of venue. I hear the Army's hiring (see the world!) They're really pushing recruitment lately, for some reason.
@BeckySharper: Agreed. Go show us you've changed, telling us you're compassionate now is just insulting. "I'm compassionate now, guys! I'm one of the little people, see? Love meeeee."
@BuffySummers: It's also worth pointing out that many of the "others who are struggling" are not doing so because they got bit in the ass by their own karma the way Emily did. They're struggling through no fault of their own, but simply because life dealt them a bad hand (poverty, illness, violence, etc).#tips
@BearDownCBears: Heh. Good point. Although I wonder if the Army is taking 38-year-olds.
The article did say she's teaching Sunday school, which is nice. But otherwise she just seems to be angling her way back into the Washington media world. That's fine, but it's not a do-over.
Well, the creative team of Cerebral Itch is married, so maybe THEY do make whoopie daily?
I don't know, if I was trying to celebrate Rachel Maddow this would not have been my angle. Her show is different, she's very intelligent, owns up to her mistakes, and she's not rude to her guests.
I wonder if she'll make a comment on the show about this.
i had to sit thru 'boys don't cry' with a barbaric 15 yr old last night. all i can say it.... we'll i can't get into this bc my blood pressure will spike and i might smack someone with my dildo.
This may be slightly off-topic, but isn't referring to a hetero woman as a "breeder" also pigeonholing someone for their sexuality? If it's not okay to make assumptions about lesbians' sexual proclivities- and obviously it's not- then why is it okay to refer to non-lesbian women as creatures that exist solely for reproduction?
Or am I the only person who finds that term dismissive?
@FullSpeedLohan: Me too. Seeing his Super Bowl footage, though, reminded how much of a GIANT he is. Not that I wouldn't bone him for democracy, though.
As a gay man I can tell you I have sex and jack off all day. Which is why I am in college and such. If this isn't making any sense thats becuz well it doesnt. (stars filming porn).
Fact: There are more gay Xtube accounts than hetero ones. Thus proving that the gays are more sexual.
@Tsar-Romanov: lol that was kind of the goal. to submit faulty logic. which thus proves that gays are sexualer than straights. and thus tying into rachel maddow um being w/e she is.
11/23/09
The rest of it, I don't think is about being a woman, it's about her lack of instincts. A press liaison who curses out reporters, can't shut up about her bosses and cuts off a live interview? Anyone who does that crap is going to shat on by the press no matter what their gender. The press will gossip about anything amongst themselves (I know, I am one) and once your name gets around as a person who's a pain to deal with, then the way they treat you after is largely your own doing.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
If that doesn't indicate the absence of a filter, I'm not sure what does.
11/23/09
"The process of recounting her life is a difficult one for Miller. A day after a lengthy conversation at Starbucks, she says by phone: "I'm really feeling awful about talking to you yesterday. . . . I walked out of there saying, 'Emily, Em, he's not your friend, what are you doing?' "
Miller does have a tendency to over-answer questions. "I just have no filter, and I really need to work on that," she says. "If it's in my head, it comes out of my mouth.""
I don't think there's enough here to extrapolate that this quality (if there is even enough here to qualify this as a quality of Miller's- it's one quote) caused her to struggle professionally.
I'm reminded of The Stranger. It's very easy to build a case against someone when we pick and choose instances to judge, and assert meaning where we like.
11/23/09
Lying to federal agents during an investigation is a federal offense. She had no choice but to tell the truth... even if she did ramble on.
And at the point in the Abramoff investigation where the FBI is interviewing Miller, they probably already have a good case against Abramoff and have an idea of his illegal activities. I highly doubt she was that important to the case to make or break it, despite whatever insinuations the WSJ made or Kurtz for that matter.
It is silly to think that Abramoff was simply brought down by a woman and not by his own hubris at thinking he was above the law
11/23/09
It doesn't sound like she was really worried about being treated badly by the press either.
It seems like what was most disorienting to for Miller is that she was rewarded by her peers and superiors for so long for these same personality traits, then all of a sudden it's, "Well, there was that one interview...." and everyone is using these incidents to justify treating her badly.
Really, the old stories about George W. when he was working on his dad's campaign were far, far worse, and Rahm Emmanuel still brags about sending someone a dead fish. Yet there's all this censure for this woman because she yelled, once? The piling on just feels off to me, even though I can't say I like her either.
11/23/09
But that quote is extremely telling for a media professional.
11/23/09
providing the quote in the context of the article was also meant for the other commenters on this thread, in case anyone else chooses to weigh in.
11/23/09
Uh, no Mr. Abramoff. The only person who is to blame for your jailing is you.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
So she's doing what, exactly? Working with low-income women and children? Teaching in a public school? Canvassing for Planned Parenthood?
I agree that people can grow and change. But just feeling bad that your life came crashing down around you is not the same as actually changing.
11/23/09
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
The article did say she's teaching Sunday school, which is nice. But otherwise she just seems to be angling her way back into the Washington media world. That's fine, but it's not a do-over.
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
Yeah, uh, no.
11/23/09
02/04/09
[www.nytimes.com]
02/04/09
I don't know, if I was trying to celebrate Rachel Maddow this would not have been my angle. Her show is different, she's very intelligent, owns up to her mistakes, and she's not rude to her guests.
I wonder if she'll make a comment on the show about this.
02/04/09
02/04/09
Or am I the only person who finds that term dismissive?
02/04/09
02/04/09
02/04/09
02/04/09
02/04/09
02/04/09
Fact: There are more gay Xtube accounts than hetero ones. Thus proving that the gays are more sexual.
02/04/09
Logic, you're doing it wrong.
02/04/09
gay generalizing via society im doing it right!
02/04/09
02/04/09
Wait. What?