Andrea Mitchell: Clinton's campaign, "right now, is not the greatest example of why women should rule the world"
SUMMARY: After noting the title of Dee Dee Myers' book Why Women Should Rule the World while discussing with Myers the resignation of Mark Penn as Sen. Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell asserted: "I don't know -- this campaign, right now, is not the greatest example of why women should rule the world."
On the April 7 edition of MSNBC Live, host and NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell plugged former Clinton White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers' book Why Women Should Rule the World (Harper, February 2008) during a discussion with Myers about the recent resignation of Mark Penn as Sen. Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist. After mentioning the title of the book, Mitchell asserted, referring to Clinton's campaign: "I don't know -- this campaign, right now, is not the greatest example of why women should rule the world."
From the April 7 edition of MSNBC Live:
MITCHELL: Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's top strategist, has resigned because of conflicts of interest. He was forced out, according to campaign insiders, after The Wall Street Journal first reported that he was a paid lobbyist for the government of Colombia and its free-trade agreement, something that Senator Clinton opposes. Clinton White House spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers is a Hillary Clinton supporter.
MYERS: I'm neutral, technically neutral in the race, but certainly have been very sympathetic to the Clinton campaign in a lot of ways.
MITCHELL: But how does this happen? Let's take it apart. First of all, the very fact that he was working as the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, this worldwide lobbying firm, at the same time as he was running her campaign.
MYERS: Right.
MITCHELL: Those two things seem completely incompatible.
MYERS: Right, and I think this proves that in fact, they were incompatible. Burson-Marsteller is a gigantic firm, as you pointed out. They handle a wide variety of cases, and there's no doubt that somewhere in the Burson-Marsteller portfolio would be an issue that would raise a conflict with Senator Clinton. Now, you could say that he could recuse himself -- Mark Penn could have recused himself from some of those decisions but in this case, he actually met with the Colombian ambassador to talk about an issue which Senator Clinton opposed, which was passing a Colombian free trade agreement. So, he was taking a meeting that was at odds with the stated views of the candidate he was supporting, not for city council someplace, this is the president of the United States. So, it really boggles the imagination to understand how he could have gone into that meeting knowing what he knows.
MITCHELL: And, the very fact that this is an issue she had made center -- a central issue in the Ohio primary -- it's important in Pennsylvania, important in Indiana, important in North Carolina, these three huge primaries coming up. The fact that she had attacked the Obama campaign for their adviser, Austan Goolsbee, an academic, not a paid, $300,000 --
MYERS: The difference, not to split hairs, but Austan Goolsbee met with Canadian officials and said don't pay -- basically the message that they took away was don't pay attention to what Senator Obama says; if he's elected, NAFTA won't change. So that was a big problem. Nonetheless, we know how this process works. Mark Penn knows how this process works. It's both -- it both looks bad on its face, is bad on its face for him to meet with the Colombian ambassador. It looks particularly bad given what just happened in the Obama campaign. It's not exactly apples and apples, but it's close enough that he obviously should have known better.
MITCHELL: Now, now, take me inside. You're also the author of the book Why Women Should Rule the World.
MYERS: Yes.
MITCHELL: I don't know -- this campaign, right now, is not the greatest example of why women should rule the world.
MYERS: Right.
MITCHELL: Take us inside a campaign like this. Why is Mark Penn such a lightning rod? Why didn't he get along -- why were there screaming matches --
MYERS: Right.
MITCHELL: -- between him and Howard [sic: Harold] Ickes? You know all these players.
MYERS: Well, the reason that he's in the position that he's in is that he's very close -- he has close relationships with both President Clinton -- former President Clinton -- and Senator Clinton. He worked for President Clinton in 1996 and was very intimately involved in not only the re-election campaign, but stayed there throughout the whole impeachment process and was a key adviser to the president at a very difficult time. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton are notoriously loyal. And so I think they felt comfortable with him. He's a brilliant -- according to Hillary Clinton's memoir, but sometimes rough and tumble adviser. But she liked him and felt comfortable with him.
MITCHELL: And he helped her in the 2000 race --
MYERS: Exactly.
MITCHELL: -- and in her re-election.
MYERS: Exactly. So he's been there for both of her Senate races. But he is a notoriously difficult to get along with guy. He's -- people say he's --
MITCHELL: What does that mean inside a campaign, that someone's difficult? You're in a meeting, you're sitting with [Clinton adviser] Mandy Grunwald, let's say, and discussing a script for a commercial.
MYERS: Right. Well, the way -- and I haven't been in any meetings with Mark Penn, but the way difficult people sometimes assert themselves -- and stories we've all heard about Mark Penn is that he doesn't listen to anybody else. Not only is he dismissive of their advice, but he's dismissive of them personally. And I think he rubs people the wrong way. And not only that, OK, so you take a difficult person. Well, the world is full of difficult personalities; if that was his only sin he would be still the chief strategist of the campaign. He was the driving force behind the strategic decision to focus only on the big states up to Super Tuesday and not to have campaign organizations in some of the smaller states, in the caucus states, and we all know that between Super Tuesday and the Ohio and Texas primaries, Senator Obama ran up almost the entire margin of delegates that he now enjoys, this almost insurmountable lead among pledged delegates.
MITCHELL: So, he's the genius behind ignore the caucus states --
MYERS: Right.
MITCHELL: -- don't worry about those delegates.
MYERS: About those little states, right. You can get the delegates you need from the big states. The other thing that he is blamed for, and I think if you talk to people inside the campaign, rightly so to a large degree, is that he didn't think it was necessary to soften Senator Clinton's image, to humanize her, to look for ways to show her more emotional side. He thought that a campaign on competence and on experience alone would be enough, and he believed that his polling data showed that. One of the other mistakes they made is he's not only chief strategist, he's the chief pollster.
MITCHELL: There's a conflict.
MYERS: There's a conflict there. It's not only a conflict, it's just not in your interest as the candidate to allow one person to process that data. Because you can find a lot of stuff in polling that might support your conclusions, but what you need is somebody there to argue a different perspective.
MITCHELL: But Dee Dee, isn't there a legitimate argument in this, that if someone misses that and has a structure that is so built on conflicts, misses the whole point that this is a change election, not an experience election, one questions the candidate ultimately has to take responsibility for that?
MYERS: No question about that. I think that, look, loyalty is important, but loyalty at the expense of competence or the ability to change course becomes, I think, an impediment of good leadership and good management.
MITCHELL: His bad advice did not come cheaply.
MYERS: Well, you know, I think that's been overblown. Because a lot of the money went through his polling firm but was then doled out to vendors for various ad buys and things like that. I think that they capped how much they were going to make it. I think it's $250,000. You'll have to check me on that. So he's -- so those figures that say he made $10 million are incorrect. Nonetheless, he's made plenty of money. It's not about money. It's about winning the presidency. And I think Senator Clinton has to take the responsibility now. She's left with the aftermath. Look, there's still a question about, what does it mean he's been sort of demoted? Does that mean --
MITCHELL: He's still in there.
MYERS: He's still in there. His firm, Penn Schoen and Berland, is still the principal polling firm, although Geoff Garin and other Democratic pollsters now playing an important role and I think it's had a very calming effect in some ways inside the campaign, as has the presence of Maggie Williams, who we all know to be, you know, just a tremendous person. So, a lot of questions still unanswered. I mean, it's another thing -- you know, this -- a clean break might have been -- had a better result with this. There's still going to be questions about, OK, what's Penn's role going forward?
MITCHELL: Dee Dee Myers, author of Why Women Should Rule the World, the New York Times bestseller. Thanks for joining us.
MYERS: Thanks, Andrea, always a pleasure.
Shouldn't MMFA be heralding Mitchell's critical analysis of Myers' book? I mean, considering all the upheaval in the Clinton campaign with resignations, past and present, money woes earlier and such, she is doing exactly what many in the media get criticized here when they don't do it - be "uncritical" of a rightwing book pusher.
But different rules apply when it's a liberal promoting their book, especially under these circumstances.
Oh, c'mon Tommy. How could you possibly feel comfortable pointing out Liberal hypocracy, when you so often give a pass to Consevative hypocracy ?
Now now RICK...... save your strength!
Tommy has a point...... however, he seems to keep forgetting that this site is dedicated to 'conservative' misinformation (it even says so in its disclaimer) and not the liberal kind (which does exist but no where near the scale of the right-wing)
I am an Obama supporter but can't help but defend Hillary at times.... I wonder..... If Bill hadn't allowed that pathetic and dispicable law Telecommunications Act 1996 to pass..... would Hillary be getting beaten up the way she is? Would George Bush be getting away with literally murder? Would Karl Rove been able to get away with outing a CIA undercover op? Would John Kerry been swift boated? Would FOX Noise even exist? Would Andrea Mitchell be smacking down one of her own?
Media deconsolidation is, in the name of equal access to markets, an absolute neccessity, I just think all those things you mentioned would still have happened. So well have the Republicans infiltrated and infected our culture with their worldview that the hatred of liberalism is bone deep.
Liberals have to take back the culture in order to bring back the era of good government. This means giving conservatives not a moments rest from head on challenge whenever their failed ideology rears it's ugly head.
You gotta know from go, you can take liberalism or you can leave it because conservatives have proven there is nothing in their agenda really worth emulating or bending to meet.
So come be a liberal and pitch in to rebuild our infrastructure and create a brighter future. We're about putting people's money to work for the people by investing in public works. Rehabilitating bridges, ports, dams, roads, libraries, museums and parks is the rational solution to our longterm security and is a job Americans can do well. Finding money for this won't hurt a bit; end the occupation
Liberalism is about growing a green economy for all, a society of independent citizen energy producers living in unison with all the renewable energy the earth and sun provide. It sounds far fetched and daunting but with the broad objective in mind of freeing ourselves from those who pollute our air and freeing ourselves from the suffering the capture of oil entails, fear is no match for the soul deep ingenuity of an invigorated, compassionate American public.
So come be a liberal. There need be no room for recriminations in that moment you decide. Despite the cybermasochistic skirmishes here, just about all of us are warm, friendly people. We'll take ya.
mitchell is definitely not a friend of democrats. she criticized john kerry in one of the presidential debates when he made critical remarks about fed chairman alan greenspan, without revealing she's mrs. greenspan. see link.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410060005
links are reversed. above one is about her claiming that cheney put john edwards "in his place" at the vice presidential debate when it was cheney who was not telling the truth. this is link about greenspan.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410150011
I think this is really funny.
LOL.
Andrea Mitchell, of all people, saying this about Hillary. Isn't she still married to Alan Greenspan?
I don't think ALL women should be judged by Hillary Clinton.
BTW, Hillary, if elected, wouldn't be ruling the world so Andrea really shouldn't be too concerned ;-)
Colonel,
I love your sense of well placed humor!!
Brilliant!
long time reader of MMFA and yes I do know the stated mission of this website (it has been a popular retort to questionable user comments, I'm very well familiar with it.) But what is MMFA trying to say with this article? Andrea Mitchel is a woman and she is saying that maybe, possibly, Hillary's campaign is not a good example for the feminist cause? The bigger question here is this "conservative misinformation" ? (remember the stated mission of MMFA?)
Pointing out the failures of the hillary campaign is not conservative misinformation by any stretch the imagination. I don't believe there is any argument from either the right or the left that it has not been a total failure (even fair minded hillary supporters will admit as much.)
MMFA you need to tread carefully here.
"Pointing out the failures of the hillary campaign is not conservative misinformation by any stretch the imagination"
It never fails to amaze me how hard it is for some people to even SEE the misinformation. Criticizing the Clinton campaign is NOT the issue! It's extrapolating that criticism to ALL WOMEN. Why is Clinton's campaign a sign that women should not "rule" the world, but Angela Merkels campaign, or Margaret Thatcher's campaign, or any one of a dozen other women leaders of nations are NOT proof that women SHOULD rule the world?
"I don't know -- this campaign, right now, is not the greatest example of why women should rule the world."
I'm not seeing the extrapolation there. She didn't say it was "proof" that women shouldn't rule the world, that would be a different argument. Saying that Hillary's campaign isn't great support (right now, even) for women in power doesn't say anything about women in general. You could say the same thing about Merkel if you don't approve of the job she's doing, that she is not a great example to support that argument. You could want more women in power and still make that criticism, couldn't you?
"Saying that Hillary's campaign isn't great support (right now, even) for women in power doesn't say anything about women in general"
Clinton's campaign says nothing more about WOMEN "ruling" the world than does any other woman's campaign...successful or not. It IS extrapolating her opinion of Clinton's campaign to all women. Speaking AS a woman I can see it easily...too bad you can't.
So you can't believe that women should have more power but that one person doesn't help that cause?
I think that's a fair question. If there's a case that there's only one reasonable interpretation, I'm listening.
"So you can't believe that women should have more power but that one person doesn't help that cause?"
Sorry, I don't think I can parse my way through all the negatives to get to the real question, but I'll try:
"So you can't believe that women should have more power"
Why can't I? But I would state it differently: I don't think women should be excluded from more power because they are women...or because some ONE woman isn't suited to having more power.
"but that one person doesn't help that cause?"
Depends on the person. But no, one woman NOT suited to power should NOT reflect on the abilities of any other woman, or any other women, to have more power.
You're splitting one question into two, for some reason. I didn't think it was all that complicated, but let me try a different way. Is it possible for someone to believe that A)women should have more power and B)one person may not be a great example supporting that idea at the same time? Is it possible these two concepts can logically coexist in one mind?
If not, why not? And if so, then what is there about Mitchell's statement that suggests she thinks women shouldn't have power because of Hillary?
"And if so, then what is there about Mitchell's statement that suggests she thinks women shouldn't have power because of Hillary?"
You're making it too easy. You, in fact, did the same thing SHE did...used the PLURAL (women) instead of the singular WOMAN. Clinton may, or may not, be an example of why SHE should not have power. She is not an indicator of why WOMEN should not have more power.
It's arguing from the specific to the general...and it's a false argument.
"You're making it too easy. You, in fact, did the same thing SHE did...used the PLURAL (women) instead of the singular WOMAN. Clinton may, or may not, be an example of why SHE should not have power. She is not an indicator of why WOMEN should not have more power. It's arguing from the specific to the general...and it's a false argument."
Of course I did the same thing she did. "Women" was in the title of the book, and it was how Mitchell phrased it, so obviously I'm going to account for what she said. You want me to offer an alternate explanation for what she actually said by using different words? That is possibly the most bizarre attempt at a "gotcha" I've ever seen.
I have to say I'm fascinated by the idea that Hillary may not be an example of why she herself should not have more power. If she's not the best example for a case against herself personally, I'm curious who would be.
My point is that it's entirely possible for Mitchell to want to see more women in power and say Hillary isn't the best example for that cause at the same time. If you made an effort to answer the question I posed, instead of splitting it or dodging it, you might see that too.
General conclusions are often based on specific examples. You can make a case against capital punishment by citing specific examples of miscarriages of justice or cruel methods of execution. Noting that one example is weaker than others doesn't mean you like the death penalty. It certainly doesn't mean you're saying that example is an argument for capital punishment. It just means it's not helpful to your case. So arguing that Mitchell said that Hillary is an indicator of why women should not have more power is based on a false choice.
Well, I guess if that's what it takes for an ingrate to feel better then have at it, jerk.
But on topic, you don't hear people talking about why men candidates aren't good examples of leadership. Specific men, yes. Men in general, no. I know Mitchell was using a play on the book title, but still. To equate campaign problems with why women in general shouldn't rule is overly simplistic and a bit sexist.
But men have traditionally been in power, so I don't think the flip works there. That's just the nature of the situation, unfortunately.
Is she generalizing about women? I think there should be more women and African-Americans in power as well. But if Clarence Thomas dropped off the Supreme Court to run for president I think I'd have to say that's not the greatest example for that cause. That's specific to the person.
"But men have traditionally been in power, so I don't think the flip works there."
Sure it does! Male leadership has brought us wars, pollution, corruption, and inequity is it's many forms (economic, social, racial, gender, etc...) You can't deny it. As you say, "men have traditionally ..." And it's no accident either. These thignas are needed for men for men to stay in power. So YES, I think clearly that MANY of the WORLD's problems can be blamed on MALE leadership attempting to maintain their power at any cost.
I didn't say anything about men's power being a universally grand concept. Note the word "unfortunately" in there.
I was addressing this:"But on topic, you don't hear people talking about why men candidates aren't good examples of leadership. Specific men, yes. Men in general, no."
What I'm saying is that since men being in power is the norm, flipping the scenario doesn't work the same way. Male power is established, so it's not as naturally put up for evaluation. When you see a change coming it's more understandable to judge the benefits of it. They're just two different dynamics.
Outsanding!
C'mon Hillary! Do you want to win PA or not?
Fire Mark Penn as soon as possible.
Why on Earth did MMFA post Mitchell's comments? What is MMFA trying to insinuate by doing so?
A highly intelligent, highly capable woman expresses her opinion that the Clinton campaign is not a shining example of the great things that women are capable of, and MMFA sees that as disinformation?
Has MMFA been getting into Mr. Hitchens' gin again?
"The difference, not to split hairs, but Austan Goolsbee met with Canadian officials and said don't pay -- basically the message that they took away was don't pay attention to what Senator Obama says; if he's elected, NAFTA won't change. So that was a big problem."
I'm sorry. I don't recall that allegation ever being substantiated.
"A highly intelligent, highly capable woman expresses her opinion that the Clinton campaign is not a shining example of the great things that women are capable of, and MMFA sees that as disinformation?"
No, MMFA posted it because of the phrase, "women should rule the world" No need for that phrase unless you are trying to create a strawman arguement.
I simply want to understand why a poll from the top tumbling down is a reflection of a campaign being a bad example for women's leadership. As I see it, the leadership within the Clinton campaign is astute and fired up for her - especially the women within her campaign. There is no end of enthusiasm or support and the media is missing this piece in their analysis. There is no employer in America that has complete control over their employees activities and this situation is an example of leadership because Penn was ousted because of this matter. There was not sidestepping - and his dealings here were not at the behest of the campaign (in contradistinction to the NAFTA/Obama situation) or in response to a messaging from the campaign. What Penn did was unthinking and unethical professionally, but not something in relation to the campaign. Attorneys build Chinese walls as to their work and community work all the time...perhaps he thought he could do that here.
But the point is this: both Obama and Clinton profess a new day in politics and promise a new kind of leadership. From what I see Obama continues the old way of politics, both in his refusal to reconcile the Fl and MI issue and in the way he has conducted his campaign (sexism, training of people to be brutal in caucuses and to win in any way possible and touting promises he simply cannot keep - not to mention his latest discussion of speculative running mates). He is inexperienced and back pedaled with the NAFTA issue. As far as I can see, the Clinton campaign reacted immediately and they continue to lead the campaign with enthusiasm and fervor for their candidate...volunteers pouring out their heart and soul for her...just like Obama's folks. The people are the campaign - not the Penns or the Professors, or even...the candidates.
So, yes, women can lead the world...we already wipe the butts and bring home the bacon. Our ceremonial jobs keep the world turning...and Hillary will keep going, no matter the media or pundits or the bad actors in her own campaign.....
Just listen to the hearings on Iraq today...she is ready lead and her supporters are ready for her to lead and are the heart and soul of her campaign.
And Andrea Mitchell, more and more, shows why she should not be in the news media....she is past her prime and her slanted views are tiresome. She and her husband need to ride off into the sunset.