Nancy Pelosi can keep a caucus together, but she doesn’t know curly fries

May 30, 2006

Maybe I just need to lower my expectations when it comes to what qualifies for a front-page story in the [tag]New York Times[/tag]. Last week it was a 2,000-word piece on how many weekends Bill and Hillary Clinton spend together. Today, [tag]Nancy Pelosi[/tag] makes the front page with a largely unflattering piece that mocks the “cadence” with which she repeats her “alliterative sound bites.”

Consider these illustrative paragraphs.

As the prospect of a Democratic majority gains credibility and Ms. Pelosi is more visible, she is also subjected to the speculation and analysis about her [tag]hair[/tag], [tag]makeup[/tag] and [tag]clothes[/tag] that any woman positioned for such a big job often must endure.

“I hear them say on TV that I’ve had face-lifts,” said Ms. Pelosi, 66, who added that she had never had one. “I heard one woman say I’ve had a [tag]face-lift[/tag], but it looks terrible.” She shook her head and said, “Did you ever think that those two things cancel themselves out?”

Ms. Pelosi said she slept little, stole exercise by dashing through airports and subsisted many days on Ghirardelli [tag]chocolates[/tag] (“less than 10” a day) and pistachio nuts (which she shells with her teeth).

“I had a [tag]hamburger[/tag] last night and it was my breakfast, lunch and dinner,” she said last week. “And I had these strange things. I realized they were French fries.” She made quick spiraling gestures with her fingers to show what they looked like. It was apparent that she was not familiar with [tag]curly fries[/tag].

Well, then Pelosi clearly has no business serving as [tag]Speaker[/tag] of the House, right?

Also note how the NYT’s Mark Leibovich mentions that it’s unfortunate how women in positions of political power have to endure “speculation and analysis” about [tag]superficial[/tag] issues, which Leibovich then adds to with additional analysis of her [tag]appearance[/tag] and eating habits.

Trivia aside, the Times’ article does make one thing clear: Republicans thrive when they have a villain they can demonize in direct mail and red-meat speeches for the GOP base. More than any House Dem leader in years, Nancy [tag]Pelosi[/tag] will be that [tag]villain[/tag], whether Dems take back the House or not.

I assume Mark is the ace writer for the “home” and “weekend” pages of the NYT. Of course, this story (if you can call it that) belonged there (if at all) as it was non-news.

Of course, we can assume a similar story on Liddy Dole will be forthcoming in a day or two. Right?

  • Mark Leibovich seems to be going out of his way these days to demonstrate what a jerk he is. Frankly, I think he writes for Mark, not the New York Times. It’s all about Leibovich, all day long, every day. And, as I’ve said before, reporters who write about personal details like that should be mimicked in blogs — we need to know more about their personal details and publicize them. There’s a possibility that satirizing reporters will get their attention…

    On the other hand, I’m not a Pelosi fan. We really must do better.

  • The culture war is a war with many fronts. If the Dems don’t know curly fries… elitest snob. Face lifts? Elitest snob. They make her hamburger dinner sound as if an east-coast upper-crust liberal is trying to appeal to the masses. She can’t eat a hearty American meal in one sitting. She didn’t know the fries. It screams of being staged.
    Perhaps I’m reading more into it than is there, but it certainly seems aimed at making her seem “one of them” rich folk. Who knows, maybe some working mothers will feel for her when they read of her sleeping little and not having time to eat….
    Regardless, people are expecting smears and attacks. If the Dems play nice it won’t be seen as nice, it will be seen as weak. They’ve let the Republicans throw them into this pit, so they can’t whine at how hard it is to get back out. They’ll have to live with being labeled either weak or as “crazed liberals”. They should push back, and hard. It’s better to fight a “crazed liberal” label than meekly accept a “weak” label.

  • I think the author is saying that this country REALLY needs a Speaker of the House who understands food and doesn’t miss any meals. Dennis Hastert seems to fill this description quite nicely. Nancy Pelosi, not so much.

  • More than any House Dem leader in years, Nancy Pelosi will be that villain, whether Dems take back the House or not.

    She’s the Enemy — after all, she has a uterus.

  • I highly recommend Garance Franke-Ruta’s excellent analysis of the treatment of women in politics – focusing on Hillary Clinton but certainly a reference for any other “serious political woman” – over at Tapped last week (Thursday, I think, or Wedneday).

    I read this sort of slimeball sleazy sexist crap, and I think back to the SDS convention in July, 1967, at U Mich in Ann Arbor, when Jane Adams and Marilyn Buck presented what may be the first public discussion of what became known as “women’s liberation” as it applied to women in political movements. Here were all these cutting-edge radicals, and what was the response of the men there during the presentation? With few exceptions, they were jumping up and down shouting things like “I stand firmly erect in my support of pussy power!” I still consider my lack of participation and embarassment at that to be one of the most important personal political acts I took in the 1960s. The good thing in that episode was that none of the “pantheon” leadership of SDS down in the front row did anything but sit on their hands (although one of them – Tom Hayden, Carl Oglesby, Todd Gitlin – getting up after the presentation and speaking in support of it would have had a major effect).

    What’s really unfortunate, considering that bit of little-known history and this new evidence that the NYT is now the nation’s official litterbox-liner and toilet paper substitute, and considering what Garance wrote, is to see how little has changed in 39 years, despite all the “changes” we have seen. Women forming a major part of the legal profession? Women running major movie studios? Women fighting wars? Women doing all the other things they do? Window dressing. When it comes to the possibility of giving women in America real power – as President, as Speaker of the House – we’re still jumping up and down, shouting “I stand firmly erect in my support of pussy power!” like the juvenile playground morons most men will never move beyond.

    Sorry guys, it’s not just the NYT or the WaPo, it’s everywhere those writers came from, and it’s perfectly obvious when you read a major progressive blogger like Ezra Klein speculating on how many times Bill and Hillary “do it” at a respected center of progressive thought like Tapped (it was his post that prompted Garance to write what she did), that we’re not just talking about “centrists” and “conservatives.” Look in the mirror.

  • More than that, Davis X– she has a uterus AND is a Democrat. The Repubs probably want to be the first to have a female Speaker, so that they’ll be able to proclaim, “See! We’re concerned about women! Vote for us, soccer moms!” Remember, according to the CW these days, abominable behavior is acceptable for Republicans, but if a Democrat so much as blinks at a fast food restaurant, he or she is a crazy, weak-kneed elitist with no morals, out of touch with the American people . . .

  • I think Davis X nailed it. I’m pretty sure the lifetime Republican campaign song starts out, “Nothing could be finah than a demon with a vagina…”

  • Oh, and just to make clear, I include myself in the list of “playground morons,” along with the rest of my gender. At least I’m a self-aware playground moron. Yes, it’s hard being a white male and looking at what we do.

  • Villains? We have plenty of villains. Don’t forget the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers–after all, he’s black.

    Oh, I forget (bad me) about Rep. Charles Rangel, a Korean War veteran, who is the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee–and he’s black too.

  • Did I miss the announcement of the deal where the publishers of US Weekly bought the New York Times? In the old days when the Times wanted to slant public opinion it was much more subtle than it has been recently with these ridiculous ‘human interest’ stories.

  • “Republicans thrive when they have a villain they can demonize in direct mail and red-meat speeches for the GOP base.”

    In a *stunning* coincidence, Republicans have villains they can demonize *only* on days ending in “Y”

    Of course they demonize Pelosi. They demonize our leaders. It’s what they do. Dean. Reid. Kerry. Gore. Clinton. Clinton. Murtha. Rangel. Conyers. Edwards. Clark. Any given leader is white. Or black. Or Hispanic. Or a woman. Or a guy. Too strident. Too mushy-mouthed. Too popular. Too manipulative. Too gullible. There’s something wrong with everyone – they’re just being helpful to us by pointing it out, and we’re just showing how reasonable we are by agreeing with them.

    Don’t act like they’re geniuses for figuring out that we have leaders, and that they’re not perfect. And don’t think that agreeing with them – “Why yes, Pelosi is, in fact, from San Francisco, so she’s got to realize that makes her a target” – is going to make them any more rational, or us any stronger, or independents any more impressed with our party or power.

  • Xeroman has the right prescription for the Dems:

    They should push back, and hard. It’s better to fight a “crazed liberal” label than meekly accept a “weak” label.

    After all, it wouldn’t be hard to throw Fred Phelps or Pat “2000 pounds” Robertson right back in thier faces if they try to push the “crazy” meme too much. We must fight back, no challenge should go unanswered–preferably with humor.

  • Okay, so Nancy doesn’t know curly fries. However (unlike her opposite number in the House—“Mass-Quantities” Hastert), she doesn’t look like Mr. Creosote. As for the Times, they must be going through journalism’s “menopause stage”—tabloid-itis….

  • I think I read somewhere that Newt Gingrich could not identify curly fries, per se, until he was well into his ’50’s and we know that he was a very effective speaker, for a time.

    Also, although he did not have a face lift himself, he paid for face lifts for all his wives, in the year before he dumped them.

  • Conservatives know that it is important to appear and act strong–no matter situation, no matter the ideology, no matter the truth! A candidate that seems certain–even if wrong–has a charismatic effect on the public. It’s a mass psychology thing. It’s akin to watching Spanish language television where all of the male announcers are macho–deep-voiced, forceful, and in control.

  • Well, remember the GHW Bush encounter with the supermarket scanner; this sort of snark wasn’t always exclusively aimed at Democrats. It’s just that Republicans have been taking identity-driven politics to new heights (like cheesesteak “whiz with”). We’ve got to expect this sort of thing, and Democrats like Pelosi unfortunately need to be careful not to fuel them. As galling as it is to say, this is the level at which so much of American politics is now played.

    • Comments are closed.