Obama’s Angels
Hillary Clinton graduated from an elite law school, was a staffer on the Hill, a partner in her husband’s successful political career, a United States Senator, and a formidable presidential candidate before becoming Secretary of State. Susan Rice is a Stanford graduate, a Rhodes Scholar, a McKinsey consultant, a National Security Council staffer, the youngest-ever Assistant Secretary of State, top foreign policy hand on a winning presidential campaign before becoming Barack Obama’s UN Ambassador. Janet Napolitano was a federal prosecutor, a state Attorney-General, and a twice-elected governor before taking the helm at the troubled Department of Homeland Security.
Naturally, The National Interest thinks an analogy to the sexy crimefighters of Charlie’s Angels would be an appropriate analytical frame. This via Spencer Ackerman.
Given that we’re now on our third woman Secretary of State out of the past four, I’d kind of think the “this top diplomat has ovaries” storyline would be kind of played out.
25 Responses to “Obama’s Angels”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 28th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Re Matthew’s comment “I’d kind of think the “this top diplomat has ovaries” storyline would be kind of played out.”
————-
I heard Madelaine Albright had big testicles, actually.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:53 am
I dunno. It might help to actually read the article.
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20492
It’s a review of two books that make certain claims about the role women–and a particularly female sensibility–can play in national security. And the idea that “ovaries” come into play is not all that surprising. There are PACs and other groups specifically dedicated to getting more women into positions of power. So perhaps it’s worth discussing what that means and how it might play out. The people who want more women in power certainly seem to think it might change things.
I guess it might have been more sensitive to use Cagney and Lacey as the cover motif. But I am not sure that would have assuaged anyone’s concerns here, as it still would have focused on the ovary thing. But that’s what the story is about.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:54 am
As long as it doesn’t turn into Designing Women (with Obama filling in the Meshach Taylor role), I don’t care.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Re Sam M’s comment “It’s a review of two books that make certain claims about the role women–and a particularly female sensibility–can play in national security. And the idea that “ovaries” come into play is not all that surprising.”
—————-
You mean like when Leslie Stahl asked Madelaine Albright about those 600,000 dead Iraqi children?
From http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
“Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”
–60 Minutes (5/12/96)
January 28th, 2009 at 9:05 am
I like Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Janet Napolitano. They’re strong, smart, capable, exceptionally well-informed, and, I think, good intentioned people. They’re unquestionably qualified for the jobs they’ve been entrusted and can be fully expected to strengthen America’s diplomatic relations and national security.
That said, Hillary was Wal-Mart’s corporate lawyer during a period that Wal-Mart was enriching itself through child-slave labor. Often unmentioned is that Wal-Mart, who’s headquarters are in Arkansas, just happened to hire the wife of the then Governor of Arkansas. Wal-Mart claimed that it was breaking ceilings. Wal-Mart has since been repeatedly sued for that unbroken glass ceiling (management has been almost exclusively male), repeatedly been sued for working employees without paying them, repeatedly been accused of profiting from sweatshops overseas, and is largely responsible for shipping America’s manufacturing base (and the associated jobs) to foreign countries that don’t have labor or environmental protections. And that was largely enabled by Clinton (the Bill).
I was ecstatic when, in late January of 2008, after Hillary came in third in the Iowa primaries, Hillary found a progressive voice. Had she had it in 1988, let alone 1998, she probably would have won the election. As it is, she’s largely always worked for the interests of the powerful and it’s why many progressives were suspicious of her and willing to take a chance on Obama, to the dismay and irritation of Hillary’s supporters.
Still, Hillary’s the best kind of Republican. She got disgusted with the Republican Party and exited stage left for the Democratic Party.
Napolitano, as the head of DHS, is someone that civil libertarians may want to keep an eye on. Napolitano is a strong advocate of increased domestic surveillance. While conservatives are all for domestic surveillance when THEY are in power, they may find themselves reconsidering their advocacy when someone ELSE is in power.
Regarding the “Angels” comparison, while it may be seen as demeaning _now_, for their time, “Charlie’s Angels” introduced a whole generation of young boys (and men) to competent, strong, capable, smart, well-informed, and always well-intentioned women. The rapt attention the Angels elicited helped secure their legacy as icons of a (kind-of) strong, sexy feminism.
One could imagine in that ’70’s that the Angel’s could, in their later years, become the Secretary of State, the UN Ambassador, and the national Security administrator respectively.
Maybe to Spencer Ackerman they were/are “jiggly airhead[s]” but when I was a kid they were kick-@$$ super-heroes.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:06 am
PLus who can forget US Ambassador April Glaspie suckering Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait so that George H Bush could kick the shit out of him?
How many innocent women and children died from that Big Oil Gambit?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie#Meetings_with_Saddam_Hussein
January 28th, 2009 at 9:11 am
I don’t know, those Charlies Angels were pretty tough cookies. I think they may have even known Karate. At least the National Interest didn’t call them Obama’s Heathers. That would have been over the line for sure.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Re Don Williams
PLus who can forget US Ambassador April Glaspie suckering Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait so that George H Bush could kick the shit out of him?
Ah, the old conspiracy theorist, the blogs’ resident Bolshevik and paranoid weighs in. However, the unfortunate fact is that Bush I initially had a hankering to ignore Mr. Husseins’ actions and had to be talked into doing something about it by Margaret Thatcher at a meeting in Colorado.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:24 am
It might help to actually read the article.
That cover is sexist and offensive no matter what the flipping article says.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:48 am
ur third woman Secretary of State out of the past four
Somewhat tangential, but I think it’s pretty cool that our last old white male Secretary of State left the office more than a decade ago, and it’s just not a big deal.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Re News Reference’s comment ““Charlie’s Angels” introduced a whole generation of young boys (and men) to competent, strong, capable, smart, well-informed, and always well-intentioned women. The rapt attention the Angels elicited helped secure their legacy as icons of a (kind-of) strong, sexy feminism.”
—————
Yes. I well remember the day Jill (Cheryl Ladd) graduated from Harvard:
http://www.celebroundup.com/cheryl-ladd/cheryl-ladd-014/
January 28th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I don’t know…isn’t this a little bit knee-jerk? The Angels were resourseful, driven, competent, always got the job done, and could kick your ass three times before your body hit the ground. It seems to me, if anything, they’re a cautionary tale about men underestimating women.
I just can’t put this on a level with the Hillary Nutcracker.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:52 am
The worst thing is it’s not even accurate. None of those women are particularly attractive.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
News Reference
rip on Clinton all you want but get your facts right
she was on the WalMart board not in its counsel’s office
“Fellow board members and company executives, who have not spoken publicly about her role at Wal-Mart, say Mrs. Clinton used her position to champion personal causes, like the need for more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program, despite being Wal-Mart’s only female director, the youngest and arguably the least experienced in business. On other topics, like Wal-Mart’s vehement anti-unionism, for example, she was largely silent, they said. As a Director, Clinton Moved Wal-Mart Board, but Only So Far NYT 05/20/07
January 28th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
re: #15. Nutter
Thanks for the correction.
re: #12. Don Williams
And it was, um, graduation photos like that that were exactly why she held my rapt attention as a kid.
They were gun toting, race car driving, karate kicking, crime stopping, super action stars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1b4iZ1RkYw
And the bad Guys almost ALWAYS underestimated them.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Girl parts, ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
January 28th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
You neglected to mention that Rice and Napolitano are also both Truman scholars (along with George Stephanopoulos). Not that I’m any less offended by the cover, just by the omission of an important credit.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I was repulsed by that cover. I’m old enough to remember the show, I was a teenager while it was on. Let anyone who thinks it’s a fair way to depict high-level women go watch it on DVD for a whole weekend, I doubt they’d still think it was a clever cover. It’s disgusting.
I can’t find any contact information at TNI or Nixon Center to complain about this. Why don’t they list contact info?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:50 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:33 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:29 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I read your blog for quite a long time and must tell you that your articles are always valuable to readers.
April 19th, 2009 at 7:40 am
ZI0JNJ bpssshbhhriw, [url=http://teoaqidxebio.com/]teoaqidxebio[/url], [link=http://tvojfswlnxzj.com/]tvojfswlnxzj[/link], http://dxezpdiriyae.com/