-
sponsorship
I would really like to drive a stake in the heart of the argument,
repeated once again by Sarah Palin in her book, that “there’s no better
training ground for politics than motherhood." At first glance, it’s
oh-so unobjectionable. But in Palin's hands, the demands of motherhood
aren’t a form of preparation that complements other kinds, like
learning about the rest of the globe before you run for vice-president.
Nope, the motherhood version of the can-do ethic makes it OK to have a
know-nothing ethic as well. Hell, if you've got enough mommy moxie you
can celebrate your lack of intellectual know-how. And you can spit on
feminism every step of the way. ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX).
-
sponsorship
The news of the hour is a new vote in Afghanistan.
This is good news for Peter Galbraith, a United Nations representative
in Afghanistan who had been fired from the U.N. team for blasting
Afghanistan's “tainted vote” in public. This new Washington- and Kabul-sanctioned runoff election, to be held on Nov. 7, may well delay an official White House announcement on more troop levels for “the good war.” But when discussing the Afghan crisis, which Daily Show co-creator Liz Winstead has taken to calling “Noplanistan”—the plight of women in the feudal, fractured, straight-dangerous nation should spring to mind ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX).
-
sponsorship
Noreen, you make a good point about Sec. Clinton’s reaction to a Congolese man who asked her about Bill Clinton's thoughts on a potential loan from China to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Yet I’m hard pressed to believe that many people in the Washington cocktail set would be so impolitic, or clueless, to exhibit anything remotely close to such condescension and sexism. After watching her campaign for the presidency last year, is there really any one left in the U.S. who doesn’t believe she can hold her own on weighty matters? .... (Read more in Double X.)
-
sponsorship
At an event on Monday in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a young man asked
Hillary Clinton what "Mr. Clinton" thought about a potential loan from
China to the financially strapped country. She paused, amazed, and
replied: "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.''
My first thought upon seeing the clip of the exchange was, of course, good for you, Mrs. Clinton. But my second thought was: that poor guy ... (Read more in Double X.)
-
sponsorship
Jess, Emily and Dayo, I saw Tina Brown's column on Hillary through a slightly different lens. Brown is writing The Clinton Chronicles, a book about Hillary and Bill, reportedly due out in 2010. The subject makes sense after Brown's terrific, dishy bio of Lady Di. The Clintons, after all, are our messy royalty. (The book deal was announced in January 2008, back when it must have seemed like Hillary would still be crowned our next Commander in Chief.)
Given this, Brown probably has some inside dope on what the Clintons are really thinking. She could be channeling Bill's thoughts about his wife. (Maybe The Big Dog is tired of being muzzled.) She could also be trying to raise Hillary's profile in advance of the book. Or, maybe Brown is just trying to do Hill a favor, by casting a little deserved limelight her way. (Read more in Double X.)
Photograph of Hillary Clinton by Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Getty Images.
-
sponsorship
Jess, here's a theory: Tina Brown told Hillary to take off her burqa
in hopes of starting a rumble. Once the Sec of State has derobed, she
and Obama can start the fight Washington watchers expected them to have
when she took the job ... (Read more in Double X.)
-
sponsorship
Earlier this week, Tina Brown referred to Hillary Clinton as Obama's submissive "foreign policy wife"
in a Daily Beast column. In that same space, she urged Hills to "take
off her burqa." Though Brown scored some points in her critique of
Clinton's invisibility (where was she this week in Russia?), those
critiques were somewhat buried in deliberately provocative and arguably
racist asides about how Hillary is Obama's "Saudi" spouse ... (Read more in Double X.)
-
sponsorship
Hanna and Dayo: I, too, was interested to read the lengthy profile of Bill Clinton in this weekend's New York Times Magazine,
but I had a very different reaction to it. I found the profile fawning
and thin, the reportage of an obedient dog happily following close on
the heels of a once-powerful leader, and I felt like the story behind
the story, which shadowed its every word, was left embarrassingly
untouched. Aside from a short aside, which is vague to the point of
hilarity, almost nothing is mentioned in regards to... (To read the rest of this post, visit our new website DoubleX.com!)
-
sponsorship
Meghan, I agree that the issue isn't really one of reverse-discrimination, even if think Hanna is right that Sotomayor's views on affirmative action
may sound dated to some contemporary ears. Rather, the issue, I think,
is similar to one that arose during last year's Democratic presidential
primary. Then the election was often portrayed in terms of identity
politics, much as Sotomayor's nomination is now. It was black (Obama)
v. woman (Hillary), with criticisms of either dismissed as so much
racism or sexism. But to me, the far more distinguishing characteristic
of both candidates, and of Sotomayor, has less to do with their sex or
skin color than with their respective ages... (To read the rest of this post, visit our new website DoubleX.com!)
-
sponsorship
In her first trip to Mexico as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton put some of the blame on us for the drug violence that is ravaging Mexican society and now spilling over the border. "Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade," she said. Ain't that the truth. I wish this meant that the Obama administration was going to consider decriminalization as the most obvious solution to this failed drug war. You'd think we would have learned from Prohibition that making illegal the human desire to take the edge off is bound to fail. You'd think the billions of dollars spent on this war and all the lives lost to violence and incarceration would have taught us that. But I'm sure there is no political will to change the institutionalized insanity of our drug laws, whose perverse incentive has been to create these criminal cartels.
-
sponsorship
Just when you thought it was safe to channel surf, it turns out HBO is making a movie out of the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal of yesteryear. The title? The Special Relationship. Special, indeed. The casting is just plain odd. Dennis Quaid is Wild Bill. Hillary Clinton? Julianne Moore. Apparently, the film focuses less on Slick Willy's hijinks and more on the president's relationship with Tony Blair (played by Michael Sheen), which devolved purportedly due to the sex scandal. Peter Morgan, who scored with Frost/Nixon, wrote the screenplay and is set to direct. Supposedly, Quaid beat out some actual A-listers for the role—Russell Crowe, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Alec Baldwin, Tim Robbins. I wonder if he truly eclipsed them or if the actors were steered away from taking the part of a man tasked with running the country who couldn't keep his hands off the help. Who'll play Lewinsky? Mia Kirshner? Megan Fox? Jessica Simpson? Nope. "Morgan has decided to use only archive footage of her culled from TV news bulletins and video of her closed-door testimony to Congress." Well, maybe the real Lewinsky will sell a few handbags out of it.
-
sponsorship
Hanna, what did you make of Anne Applebaum's take on Hillary's so-practical-it's-just-short-of-cynical diplomatic style in today's Washington Post? It was kind of a grudging shout-out, too, although I thought Applebaum didn't give Hillary quite enough credit. Amnesty International, I understand, was "disappointed" that Clinton failed to adequately whine about human rights abuses to the Chinese government, but I really liked that she replaced the ritualized righteous complaints with simple frank talk. Applebaum did praise Hillary, though, for comprehending the power of gesture over words:. "In China, a country where religious believers are harassed, all prominent visiting Americans should make a point of going to church—as Clinton did," she wrote, suggesting another potentially galvanizing gesture Hillary could make: "In Russia, a country that is ambivalent about its repressive past, all prominent visiting Americans should make a point of visiting a memorial to the victims of Stalin."
Hillary's church visit apparently hit a real nerve in China. I like this fledgling model for a secretary-of-state-ship, one that emphasizes gestural actions over endless diplomatic gabfests. And I like it all the more for the way it gently flips the gender stereotype that all women like to do is talk.
-
sponsorship
A little shout-out for our new secretary of state, who, this past week, has been carving out her own brand of so-practical-it's-just-short-of-cynical diplomacy in China and elsewhere. Clinton was criticized for not publicly sticking it to Chinese leaders, like her husband did when he declared they were on the "wrong side of history." But what she's doing is much more interesting, and potentially effective. Clinton is giving up on the grandstanding because she knows it doesn't work. She didn't lecture Chinese leaders about human rights because "we pretty much know what they're going to say," Clinton said (candidly), causing all manner of diplomat to spill his scotch and soda in alarm. Chinese leaders have never responded to public scolding, so it's no use trying again. What she did instead is meet with a group of women involved in grass-roots and mildly subversive activism. This is strategic scolding of the kind Chinese leaders are sure to notice. And it gives a boost to the people who can actually make something happen in China. Clinton also spoke freely about Burma and North Korea in a way American diplomats never do. This is exactly why Obama chose her. She is the muscle behind his "negotiate with anyone" strategy. Sure, we'll negotiate, but only if it will work.
-
sponsorship
We welcome this guest post from Yasmine Ergas, who teaches international law at the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia University and is the associate director of the Center for the Study of Human Rights.
Earlier this year, French minister of justice, Rachida Dati, created shock waves, not so much by giving birth out of wedlock and refusing to divulge the name of the father, but by going back to work after only five short days. Last spring, the Spanish minister of defense, Carme Chacon, proudly reviewed the troops, pregnant belly first. And on Jan. 13, Hillary Clinton appeared at her confirmation hearing with Chelsea at her side. Are these women, Hillary in particular, heralding a new way of politics by bringing female solidarity, maternity, and womanly ways of being into the traditionally male—and adamantly masculine—enclosures of government?
Sometime in the middle of her campaign, after Bill had made one too many offensive remarks, Hillary changed strategy: Bill was relegated to the background. The iconic Clinton family had never done much for her candidacy anyway. Those pictures a' trois on the campaign trail served as a perpetual reminder of unsavory domestic relations rather than as a net positive. It was smart of Hillary to let Bill go silently into his foundation's night.
In place of the threesome came Hillary and Chelsea. A grown woman with her grown daughter. Sure, it was a unit made of shared ambitions and intense grooming. But it was also a unit made of similarity and difference, of experience and apprenticeship, of a solidarity that runs both ways. Standing next to each other on a podium, working the crowds together, they seemed to acknowledge that there was a reason why it was just the two of them up there, and that reason might not have been of their own making. Surely, neither Hillary nor Chelsea had invited Gennifer Flowers, or Monica Lewinsky, or any of their ilk, into their household. Of course, mobilizing Chelsea wasn't just circumstantial, it was also clever politics. It brought some youth appeal (not much, to be honest) to counter Obama's messianic status among the young. It dispelled the idea that Bill would be the real president. Even more, having her child around feminized Hilary. It promised to transform the incipient dragon lady—the "monster" that Samantha Power had invoked—into a mother figure.
And that transformation emphasized the idea that the relationship between mother and child can stand on its own terms, that what can be passed from mother to daughter includes knowledge about how to be out there in the world, that a woman with children is not a woman alone. So it is actually Hillary and Chelsea who are iconic. They represent all those women who, in fact or in fantasy, have brought up their daughters to be participants in the world.
-
sponsorship
Dahlia, Meghan, like Jessica, I'm not so alarmed by the Girl Scout Research Institute findings (so that's where the Thin Mints money goes). Hillary Clinton almost became president this year, didn't, and now she's secretary of state. Sarah Palin could have become vice president, but wasn't ready for the job, and when you're not ready for a very public job, you can find yourself humiliated (ask Dan Quayle). Caroline Kennedy (whose paper doll image I played with as a girl, and so I find myself untroubled by the appearance of Malia and Sasha dolls) almost became senator from New York, but it turns out more than a famous name was called for, and a better qualified woman, Kirsten Gillibrand was chosen. I think the parents of the girls who took the poll need to help them to see that the lessons of this political year are that there are and will be plenty of opportunities for them to be become leaders—but that not everything will go their way, and when things don't, they have to be flexible enough to seize the opportunities they can. And also that Girl Scout training provides a crucial lesson in getting ahead: Be prepared.
-
sponsorship
OK, so, at first blush, Kirsten Gillibrand—the replacement for Hillary in the Senate, announced today—looks like the ideal solution to all of New York Gov. David Paterson's problems. Like Caroline Kennedy, she's a woman. Like the big names in the replacement race, she's a talented buck-raker (as of this summer, she was crowned the "top fundraiser" among the 42 Democrats in the House class of '06). But unlike Kennedy or Cuomo, she isn't saddled with all that dynastic baggage. Perfect!
But she's also got politics. (Amid all the oohing and aahing over a lady politician's ascent, we sometimes forget that these political girl wonders have views along with their unusual anatomy.) And her politics are quite different from those of the other contenders. She's definitely the most conservative pick out of the possible replacements the Albany Times-Union handicapped. How conservative? Well, this fall she called her voting record "one of the most conservative in the state," and while I was skeptical when I first read that—including Republicans?—it's not too much of an exaggeration, especially now that the antediluvian Vito Fossella has been booted from office.
Among the mavericky votes Gillibrand has racked up: a vote in favor of giving immunity to the telecom companies that helped Bush spy on U.S. citizens; votes against both Pelosi-supported TARP bailout bills; a vote for the May 2007 war funding bill, which lacked a troop-withdrawal deadline, the liberal mania of the moment (no other New York Democrat voted in favor); and a vote for this fall's proposal to roll back the District of Columbia's prohibition on semiautomatic guns. (In general, the National Rifle Association is a huge Gillibrand fan, making the extremely rare move of endorsing her over her Republican opponent this year.)
I have no way of knowing whether Gillibrand is conservative at heart or whether she's simply fastidiously cautious about reflecting her district, which—until November—was the most Republican slice of New York represented by a Democrat. But her elevation represents another triumph for the Blue Dog-style, Rahm Emanuel-style philosophy of expanding Democratic power: make economic crusaders (TARP vote: check) with strong veins of conservatism running through their politics (gun love: check) the new faces of the Democratic Party. (The photo at the top shows Gillibrand next to Pennsylvania's Chris Carney, a top poster boy for the fashionable red-tinged brand of Democrat.)
Well. We'll see what Gillibrand sounds like when Chuck Schumer is done with her.
-
sponsorship
Noreen is having technical difficulties, so I'm posting her thoughts on Caroline Kennedy dropping out of contention for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat:
So Caroline Kennedy is withdrawing her name from consideration for the Senate, reportedly to spend more time with her ailing Uncle Teddy. Whether that’s the full story or a rather a graceful cover-up for what would have been an embarrassing PR fiasco if she hadn’t been picked, I think this could be an opportunity for her in the long run. I was among those who felt Kennedy was getting an easy, entitled pass without showing how much she wanted the seat or why. But if she picks herself up and runs for the open seat in 2010 (with real voters and everything!), she’ll get a chance to prove me wrong and maybe even grab my vote.
-
sponsorship
When John McCain made his first comments on the Senate floor today since his electoral opponent was sworn into office, calling for a unanimous consent vote on Hillary Clinton's confirmation as secretary of state (instead of the roll-call vote fellow that Republican Sen. John Cornyn insisted on Monday), it looked like a grand gesture of post partisanship. I’m a bit skeptical change has taken hold so quickly. Despite the usual "esteemed colleague" rhetoric, the Senate is a treacherous place. McCain is supporting Mrs. Clinton, yes, but he is also having another chance to tell his sometime rival Cornyn, "f--- you," like he did when the two got into a fight during a 2007 meeting on immigration legislation. (McCain also "used a curse word associated with chickens" but I never figured out what it was.) Nor am I convinced Cornyn's agenda for holding up Sen. Clinton's confirmation vote is as pure as wanting "a little more transparency," which is all he claims he wants from Bill's foundation. Hillary will get confirmed either way. I, too, want Obama's Cabinet to get to work, but a little more disclosure about those donors would not be such a bad thing.
-
sponsorship
Did anyone else catch the incredibly sour looks on their faces as they walked past CNN's cameras? They do think it should be her day. But I'm with you, Eve. What an incredible day. I wish my father were alive to see an African-American being sworn in as president. He wasn't in love with Obama—and he died before the Florida primary last year, although I am quite sure he would have voted for Hillary and might even have voted for McCain in the general election, because he so admired his military service—but he would be so proud to see this today.
-
sponsorship
Poor Caroline Kennedy: After eight years that made Bush I look way less embarrassing than he used to, we've had enough of political dynasties, thanks. It's unfair, though, to blame her for representing the old way and old guard when the true knock against her is that she hasn't been old school enough, and failed to fork over the kind of campaign cash to state and local Democrats that anyone plotting a political future knows is part of the cost of doing business.
In the end, New York Gov. David Paterson will fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat with just one consideration in mind: He'll choose the person who he thinks will best secure his own political future. But if that's not Caroline Kennedy, then all the hand-wringing about her unfair familial advantage will have been wildly off-the-mark. The open criticism of her by any number of New York Democrats has already made clear that party people aren't exactly quaking in fear of offending her family; the oligarchy ain't what it used to be. And that this is the reaction at a time when Ted Kennedy is fighting brain cancer makes me think that maybe the "dynasty" has died out already, without an heir.