An absolutely hilarious column today in the Globe by Frank Phillips “Warren’s rivals chafe at her sudden ascent.” After spending a few paragraphs rubbing ink-stained hands with delight at the emergence of an exciting horse race for the Democratic Senate nomination, we find this:
Though she has given polished performances on national television talk shows pushing for tougher rules for the nation’s financial institutions and seemed to connect with voters in her first few days on the campaign trail, she also showed signs of inexperience.
Evidence for this inexperience: “[S]he was pressed to take positions, but fell back on her general refrain that she has joined the race to fight for the middle class and against the policies she believes are destroying it.” Veteran journalist Jim Braude agreed: “If she wants to maintain her front-runner status, she has to learn to answer direct questions. She doesn’t seem to be doing much of that in these early stages.”
Now, what self-declared front-runner — a second-generation professional politician who has already proclaimed himself unbeatable and his re-election a sure thing — can we think of that has raised not taking positions to official governing policy? Someone who sponsors bills and then filibusters his own bill? Who says he opposes negative campaigning but pays huge fees to top aides who run smear campaigns? Who is so weak his nickname is the Caboose of the Senate? Why, Scott Brown.
And the media almost never calls him for it: they just swallow his vague statements and claims that everything needs “further study” and he “has to understand the facts” and is tired of “politics as usual” (the same political system that has been his meal ticket for two generations). For him, its not “inexperience” but … something.
I am sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Warren is a woman. Sexism would never enter into the calculus of Massachusetts politics. Still, it is a double standard.
JimC says
Democrats are held to a higher standard.
SomervilleTom says
The Globe is not the only “Boston media” perpetuating a sexist double standard.
At least some of the commentary here is woefully sexist. Consider this front-paged gem:
Can anyone seriously suggest that such derisive commentary (“platinum blonde and boob job”?) would be directed at a male candidate?
bidd50 says
When Elizabeth Warren does well on the campaign trail, great, the media should give her credit. When she doesn’t, then the media has a responsibility to call her out on it, just as they do with other candidates. This is too important a race to have a coronation a year before the primary and 14 months before the general. We know that her father was a custodian (can we please use the more respectful term for the job?) and that GE pays no taxes. I get it. Now what?
oceandreams says
That’s pretty much the message voters got during the early weeks of his campaign. Was he out of the gate talking about the many positions he was going to take on issues across the board — or actually anything besides opposing healthcare?
Those of us who follow politics have known about Elizabeth Warren for years. But after reading about her campaign announcement day, it appears that many Massachusetts voters still don’t know much about her yet. She needs to establish her narrative first. I expect other specifics to come after. We’ve still got a long way to go before having to make a primary choice.
Trickle up says
petulant sulking by so-called journalists.
PR 101: You’ve done a good job when you turn every question into an opportunity to reinforce your message. You get no points for “answering the question” that the talking head has decided is Veddy Importent.
In this case, Warren wisely declined Braudy’s kind offer to pick a fight with her old boss, Barack Obama. That would have been a great scoop for Jim, and nice try and all that, but not so great a narrative for her at this point.
No question Warren is a rookie and there are plenty of rough edges. But she’s already doing a great job at avoiding one rookie mistake, namely letting the media run your campaign.
Oh, and notice despite all the awful blunder of hers–not declaring earlier, meeting with people not reporters, not “answering their questions”–the story describes her as the frontrunner?
Not bad for a rookie!
kirth says
If you’re ever called as a witness, and the opposing lawyer asks you a question beginning with “Would it be fair to say…” you’d be smart to answer “No.” Do not let lawyers or reporters frame your narrative at will. Their interests are not your interests.
liveandletlive says
I am reluctant to have to call out the sexist thing, but yeah, it’s everywhere and it’s rather humiliating. I mean I’m humiliated as a woman and a citizen of the United States that different expectation are set for woman and for men. It’s so embarrassing. As far as her not answering questions directly I’m curious about how the other Dem candidates (past and present) have answered questions about Obama’s policies. The only person I’ve heard actually not evade such questions is Mike Capuano. He is the only one that I’ve heard come right out and criticize Obama’s decisions instead of dancing around them. I wonder if the other candidates have been called out about answering questions in an indirect way. It seems like that’s all I hear is indirect answers. Of course, when a woman does it it’s news worthy and a sure sign of weakness. I hate the media. They are ruining our country. They work very hard to manipulate public opinion and more times than not they win at it.
liveandletlive says
she (and we) have to rise above it all and find strength in the fact that we know exactly what is going on. We have to push forward and promote Elizabeth Warren as the amazing woman that she is. I believe in her. It takes a lot for me to actually believe in someone. We can and will push past the media manipulation and degradation. If there were ever a time to fight back with the power of our might, this is it.
liveandletlive says
n/t
mizjones says
See Bob Massie’s criticism of Obama’s recent decision to soften smog regulations here
Excerpt:
Mark L. Bail says
the media constantly leaves itself out of the message equation.
really means,
“If she doesn’t want us to be critical, she needs to learn to behave as we want her to behave.”
They will focus on her, or speak in the passive voice, but they are stating their expectations and preferences.
urban says
I think it sucks that there are no jokes this week
Bob Neer says
Just scroll up, and be enlightened.
michaelbate says
The reporters asked what she thought of the GE CEO being appointed by Obama and whether she supported Obama’s jobs plan. Apparently she avoided both questions and responded with talking points (presumably to avoid offending Obama).
Sounds distressingly similar to the way that Scott Brown avoids tough questions.
By contrast, Tom Conroy this last week openly opposed the legislative leadership by speaking against and then voting against the casino gambling legislation.
mannygoldstein says
I attended a house party where Patrick was being very careful. Seems to be a common issue even with candidates who are successful.
Al says
it would be praised as “staying on message”. In this case, the interviewing community is annoyed that she didn’t get pushed off message. It all depends whose ox is being gored.