Here it is everyone, because you haven't had enough idolatrous press coverage of the Obamas...a new portrait of our steely, strategic, business-like First Lady.
I'm sorry I read this, because I knew it would make my eyes bleed. I've always considered the whole "role" of First Lady thing to be much ado about nothing, and the kerfuffles that ensue as the "staff" of the First Lady (you know, we PAY for this...) battles with the staff of the President for their due.
But a couple of things strike me from this puff piece....
The first is that it sounds like there's a lot of...well...cat-i-ness going on in the East Wing.
Secondly....does it strike anyone else as ironic that we're all supposed to take this First Lady thing seriously, we're all supposed to nod our heads that she actually has a job and that she is making a contribution....we're all supposed to believe that she is a serious political figure....but then NO ONE asks (at least not at the WaPost) "where are the men on your staff?" As a matter of fact, the article lets us know that:
"Up and down the hall are professional women with whom she has a longtime connection and whom she trusts to execute her vision"
Where's the diversity? If a white, male President had nothing but white males advising him in this day and age, wouldn't we look at that askew? But we're supposed to just "get" this. You know. That the First Lady is "different" and that she should have the option of just packing her staff with "the girls" from Chicago.
How is this any different from the Old Boy network?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Heard a referencethis morning to the "state run media". I think that phrase should take the place of "mainstream media".
I was initially excited when listening to the radio, I thought I heard MSM, I mean SRM, lather up over a story that Her Royal Highness was going to be championing the right to bear arms. Then I read the report...it was "bare arms". What was I thinking?
That article was truly ridiculous. Had that been written about any first lady of either party, I'd be scratching my head...why?
My eyes bleed too, although I don't see it as fawning: I think that pitiful article reads as thought it was designed to elicit your response exactly.
Contrary to what that article seems to describe, it's most definitely a massive job, but that First Lady role is a tough one to grapple with and so very dependent upon the couple in power. Abigail Adams was known as "Mrs. President" (and not in a complimentary manner) for being so ardently partisan in support of her husband, Edith Wilson was de facto President during her husband's lengthy illness, and Nancy Reagan pretty much carved out the significant role the First Lady currently holds in terms of being an acknowledged backroom policy advisor.
I wouldn't credit this piece with providing a good basis for assessing the demographic breakdown of her staff, and I know no more about it than what we see here, so I'll pass on the question of whether or not her staff provide diverse perspectives.
Post a Comment