In a battle for who can say the most undermining thing, Joe Scarborough suggests that Bill Clinton travel to Africa on a "mission of mercy" and rescue his wife, just as he rescued Laura Ling and Euna Lee. Because getting criticized in the media for standing up for yourself (all this analysis is apropos of Clinton's comment that "my husband is not the Secretary of State, I am") is just like being captured by dictatorial regime, and being rescued by her husband is exactly what Secretary Clinton needs to help the world take her policies more seriously. But Tina Brown interrupts this already offensive suggestion to basically call Clinton fat. How is Clinton supposed to make good on her promise to make women's issues "central" to foreign policy, if the US media keeps making her looks and her husband central to her policy?

In her latest 'Domestic Disturbances' column, Times opinion writer Warner writes,

As she circles the globe in coming years, making the case for women's empowerment, starting with their basic right to be taken seriously, Clinton really has her work cut out for her. And it isn't just because the situation of women around the world is so dire, and the ocean of problems confronting them - maternal mortality, sex trafficking, domestic abuse, malnourishment, lack of education, lack of adequate medical care, just for starters - is so wide and so deep. [...] It's also because the tide of trivialization that washes over all things "Hillary" is just so powerful. That tide threatens to drown out anything of substance Clinton might attempt for a population whose problems have long been obscured in the androcentric world of diplomacy. And that's a huge pity.

Both Scarborough and Brown imply that Clinton needs to make us respect her, either by "being careful what [she says] in front of cameras" (Scarborough) or, by working out more (Brown). But why is "trivialization" our default mode? Of course, Hillary Clinton isn't our first female Secretary of State, and her current position as figure of fun may have to do with her longstanding role in the Clinton media circus. Because of her husband's indiscretions, people got used to making jokes about her personal life and appearance long before she ran for President or held a Cabinet position. But those jokes weren't acceptable then (remember all the scrutiny of her thighs?), and they're even less acceptable now that she's trying to be an ambassador for women's rights around the world.

In fact, today, Clinton will visit the African nation of Liberia, where she will meet with President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Africa's first female head of state. Yesterday, she told a Nigerian talk show host,

From a moral perspective, we?re in the 21st century; all human beings, no matter what religion or ideology you reference, have the right to develop to their God-given potential. And too many women in too many parts of Africa are not being developed fully.

Will anyone pay attention to this message, much-needed not just in Africa but throughout the world? "Maybe," says Warner, "if we stop viewing everything Clinton does as entertainment."

Hillary Fights A Tide of Trivialization [NYT]
Clinton Heads To Liberia To Show Women Power [AFP]

Clinton is the first Secretary of State to enter the Congolese war zone, and she has an important mission: to urge an end to sexual violence in a country the United Nations calls "the rape capital of the world." Hundreds of thousands of women — and many boys and men — have been raped in the last 10 years alone, often by members of the Congolese military. Anneke Van Woudenberg of Human Rights Watch tells the story of a 15-year-old girl who was kept in a hole and repeatedly raped over the course of five months, when she became pregnant, at which point her family disowned her. Such crimes are all too common in Congo, and Clinton urged President Joseph Kabila both to protect his people and to stem the unregulated mineral trade that gives rise to much of Congo's military activity.

But none of this is very fun or funny, and what the media really wants to talk about is Clinton supposedly getting huffy about her husband. In response to a question about Bill Clinton's opinion on a financial issue, Clinton reportedly "bristled," saying, "You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not secretary of state, I am...If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband." Her intent was likely to redirect attention where it belongs — on Congo — but of course her remark had the opposite effect, generating analysis of Clinton's supposed frustration and her relationship with Bill.

Today, Maureen Dowd snipes that "looking unhinged about your marriage on an international stage hardly empowers women" and accuses Clinton of being "steamed about Bill celebrating his upcoming 63rd birthday in Las Vegas with his posse." But Tina Brown's take in The Daily Beast is perhaps the most annoying. She generously allows that, "contrary to received opinion, I am told Bill's wife was not a bit miffed at her husband's bounding back into the limelight with that glamorous Team America rescue of damsels in distress from evil North Korea." But then she backtracks with this fun little metaphorical quip: "it's just that-oh God, the trouble is that when Bill bounces back up, he bounces so high he always ends up landing on her." Poor Hillary! Brown continues,

Madam Secretary was doing so well at grabbing back the spotlight, delivering hard messages to devious, corrupt African strongmen, issuing warnings to Somali militants, busting a move on the dance floor at a gala dinner in Nairobi. In Congo she was particularly stressed. She had spent a day touring a refugee camp, hearing harrowing stories of rape, persecution, and female subjugation, issues she has long made hers. I suspect she'd just about had it with having to tiptoe around so many big-dog male egos-Obama, Bill, Africa's Messrs. Kibaki, Zuma, and Kabila. And p.s., was it necessary for Bill to be yukking it up on his birthday with the old adoring pals at such a fancy, high-priced restaurant as Craftsteak?

Instead of pointing out that Clinton's frustration might stem from an overlooking of the very issues she was campaigning against, and an unproductive focus on her husband, Brown just talks about how tiring those issues must be for Clinton. Way to miss the point in a new direction. But the real kicker is this:

And not only that, but (and I say this in solidarity, not belittlement) the African humidity had wreaked havoc on her hair. It had gone all flat and straight, which puts any woman in a bad humor. (Let's not forget: It was a sympathetic reference to the female-specific chore of keeping perfectly coiffed that made Hillary's eyes fill with tears back in New Hampshire.) Plus, the grueling State Department schedule means these days she can never get to the gym.

See, Hillary was just mad because she was having a bad hair day. Oh, and she might also have been feeling fat. This nasty little paragraph shows that sometimes women know how to use the tools of the patriarchy — belittlement (not solidarity) and looksism — better than anyone. It also shows how reducing Clinton's visit to Congo to a personal struggle for acceptance ignores the people there who actually need help.

In the Huffington Post, Georgianne Nienaber criticizes Jeffrey Gettleman's Times coverage of Clinton's visit ("It does not serve readership or the truth to paraphrase the Secretary of State, when direct quotes would do a much better job of conveying her tone and intent. Does the man not own a digital recorder?"), and quotes blogger Texas in Africa who mocks the cliched nature of most Western coverage of Congo ("It's the Heart of Darkness"). Texas in Africa also notes that American shock is played-out and worthless as a response to the crisis in Congo, that what Clinton really needs to do is push for more peacekeeping troops, better HIV/AIDS treatment, and other real-world solutions. But the bar isn't set very high for Clinton or journalists like Gettleman when the dominant media conversation seems to be about Clinton's hair.

Niether Nienaber nor Texas in Africa likes Gettleman much, but he does offer this illuminating anecdote in his Times piece:

A third woman, Christine Schuler-DeSchryver, a well-known anti-rape activist, vented about all the empty promises from the stream of high-ranking visitors who have recently come to eastern Congo, "one more important than the next."

"In the end, all we got was a pile of business cards," she said.

She pressed Mrs. Clinton to do more to end the criminally-controlled mineral trade.

"Madame Secretary," she said, "we want you to be our spokesperson, our voice."

It's Clinton's responsibility to be an effective voice for the Congolese people, not just a purveyor of empty American outrage. But the press could help her, by focusing on the actuall issues at hand. Brown writes, "as usual it's not the politics anyone is talking about now. The unchanging thing about the first lady/senator /presidential candidate-turned-secretary of State is the crackle of marital complications. Just as Hillary Clinton is a pol, she is also-just as intensely (and at times perplexingly)-Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton." But Tina Brown is an incredibly powerful media mogul — to some extent, she controls what people are talking about. She could help them talk about something real.

Why Hillary Lashed Out [Daily Beast]
Hillary Clinton In Congo: Tempers, Human Rights, And Media Cliché [Huffington Post]
Clinton Presents Plan To Fight Sexual Violence In Congo [New York Times]
Congo Rape Victims Caught In Political Crossfire [NPR]
Clinton: I'm Secretary Of State, Not Bill [AP]
Perhaps I've Gotten A Bit Cynical [Texas In Africa]
Toilet-Paper Barricades [NYT]

• Now that it's been a full year of shitty economic news, we are officially in a recession and have been for a year. Aren't you glad to know? [MSNBC]
• The market is not glad to know, and it slid almost 700 points after learning the obvious. [NY Times]
• In other obvious news, Condoleezza Rice doesn't plan to give much advice to Hillary Clinton. What advice she does give, we're guessing Clinton doesn't plan on following. [MSNBC]
• Bill Clinton is pretty happy about Hillary's nomination, though. [Real Clear Politics]

• White people at CNN just don't know 'bout Susan Rice, our soon-to-be Ambassador to the UN. [Think Progress]
• Joe Biden gave his first post-election speech today, so people wouldn't forget that he's about to be VP. [Politico]
• Palin talked, too, at a rally for Saxby Chambliss, so people wouldn't forget that she wanted to be VP before she wanted to be President. [Politico]
• Saxby Chambliss pervily grabbed himself some incestuous tween side-boob in a new commercial. [Indecision 2008]
• The Department of Homeland Security is more fucked up than watching Saxby Chambliss feel his tween granddaughter's breast. [Boston Globe]
• LGBT rights organization Impact-Florida plans to protest Governor Charlie Crist's (fey, if not gay) marriage this weekend, because protesting breeder weddings is a good plan to get more voters on your side. [The Sun Coast News]
• The cherub-faced Chairman of the FCC, Kevin Martin, wants to force the winner of a new wireless auction to set aside a portion of its win for free, porn-free wifi. Apparently, Republicans are all into not regulating the market until it comes to porn, when they get are regulatory up in there. [Silicon Alley Insider]
• Former Clintonista Phil Singer thinks Chris Matthews should get off the air if he's going to start campaigning for Arlen Specter's Senate seat. [Politico]
• Tina Brown thinks Rachel Maddow should get the coveted Meet The Press chair, among other, non-boring people. [Daily Beast]
• With Hillary Clinton's imminent resignation from her Senate seat, two names keep popping up: New York Attorney General Andrew "Shucking And Jiving Is Not A Racist Term, I Swear" Cuomo and Bill Clinton. And you thought nothing could get you to vote for Bill again. [The Hill, CNN]

Brown takes a page from Ralph Ellison and calls over-50 females "invisible women." Younger women aren't voting for Hillary, she posits, because "The very scar tissue that older women see as proof of her determination just embarrasses their daughters, killing off for them all the insouciant elation that ought to come with girl power in the White House." Brown suggests that Hillary team up with Chelsea and hold some mother-daughter rallies in Pennsylvania to appeal to the under-30 set.

And why isn't that generation voting for Hillary? Young Jessica Bennett treads on well-worn territory when she argues that the "universal sisterhood" idea doesn't appeal to 20-something female Obama-philes. In a Q& A with Newsweek, Hillary herself explains why young women do not flock to her: "It's hard for young women to really feel the emotional connection because they didn't live through what we lived through. When I was a young woman, there were colleges I couldn't go to, jobs that I couldn't have ever had, a set of expectations that were pretty much imposed—and so women my age, we have gone through this extraordinary movement ... But the true beneficiaries are our daughters and our granddaughters."

But these 20 and 30-somethings who vote for Obama still feel guilty about not voting for Hillary, perhaps, as Jessica Bennett argues, because "[We were] reared at a time when Hillary was ever present, a sort of surrogate mother to us all."

If the Hillary-as-mother trope makes women feel guilty, it makes men feel a Freudian rage, says Kathleen Deveny. Deveny believes that much of the sexism directed towards Hillary is based in men's primal feelings towards their mothers and these men "mean 'mother' in the nagging, scolding, mom-jean-wearing sense, and not in a reassuring, brave and noble 'founding father' sort of way. Because since our mothers were often the sole authority figures in our childhoods, powerful women can bring back uncomfortable, if not emasculating, memories."

Speaking of emasculating, many have compared Hillary to another powerful old broad, Margaret Thatcher. Writer Julia Baird makes the point that though Thatcher pranced around her home "peeling potatoes" and "baking cakes" to soften her iron-woman image, she's not the only politician to do so. "Like men, women have exploited their gender when it suits them," Baird says.

Anna Quindlen takes the idea of Hillary's gender role throughout this race and puts an interesting twist on it. Obama has been allowed to show a more feminine side to overwhelming praise because "while [Clinton] felt the need to prove muscle and mettle, he has been making human connections. Here's the deal: that's because he could afford to. A male candidate owns all the guy stuff simply by virtue of his birth; he can then go on to show that he's caring and communitarian."

By virtue of his birth, Obama is also a black man. For Allison Samuels, her desire to see someone in the White House who cares about black issues "trumps [her] desire to see a woman in the White House." Samuels continues, "I can't afford the luxury of fighting two battles when one is so clearly a matter of life and death."

Last but not least, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick wonders whether this year's election will settle the question of identity politics once and for all. "Perhaps," Lithwick wagers, "at the end of all these months of peering in the mirror, we can stop looking for the candidate who embodies every slight and insult we've ever encountered, and contemplate which of them is better suited to govern." What might fell Hillary is not her gender, says Eleanor Clift in yet another essay, it's her personality, marred by a combination of "hubris and naiveté". Focusing on the policy and the temperaments of the candidates instead of their genitalia or the color of their skin? Why would anyone want to do that!

Hillary And The Invisible Women [Newsweek]
Am I Betraying The 'Sisterhood'? [Newsweek]
'A Common Experience' [Newsweek]
Leave Your Mother Out Of It [Newsweek]
Still Stuck In Second [Newsweek]
The Legacy Of My Grandmother [Newsweek]
Scenes From a Tea for Two [Newsweek]
Enough About Us. What About Them? [Newsweek]

Earlier: 30 Women Hate On Hillary In 30 Different Ways