Monday's Politico featured a piece called "Fire Valerie Jarrett" which suggested if the President was going to shake up his administration he should start with his closet adviser Valerie Jarrett. On MSNBC.com, Mika Brzezinski fired back that the suggestion that Jarrett has got to go was sexist.
The Politico author, who is a woman, makes the suggestion about Jarrett because she is the president's closest adviser and that is who usually takes the hit after a rejection of the President after a midterm election:
Let’s stipulate right away that it would be unfair to blame Jarrett, the longtime Obama family friend and confidante, for the walloping that the president and his party suffered at the polls on Tuesday. And Jarrett will no doubt be needed in the weeks ahead to comfort her old pals, Barack and Michelle.
[...] But let’s also face facts—and expect the president to do so as well. We’re at that point in an already long-toothed presidency when things inside really need to change. In the days before anyone knew how brutally the Democrats would get beaten, politicians and staffers and pundits were urging a shakeup of the White House staff.
This is, after all, a time-honored practice for an administration in trouble. Somebody’s got to take the blame other than president, who’s not going to resign himself. Past presidents who fared badly in midterm elections have not been shy about making high-level changes—George W. Bush fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the 2006 midterms and also replaced his chief of staff. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan at the same low point in their administrations replaced their chiefs of staff when they failed to perform up to expectations or fell from grace. George H.W. Bush did the same to chief of staff John Sununu.
According to a Brzezinski op-ed published on MSNBC.com, Politico was simply indulging in the typical “blame-the-woman” routine:
As Valerie can tell you, Joe and I have been tough on the White House when their actions concerned those around the Morning Joe set. I have dished out criticism toward Valerie and her peers many times. But I must say this week’s gossipy post-mortems after the elections are unbecoming.
Would these criticisms be leveled at men like John Podesta or Dan Pfeiffer? They work closely with the President. In fact, Ms. Jarrett was out of commission for the most important stretch of the campaign because of a serious medical procedure on her spine. So why is Valerie the focus of these ridiculous attacks?
Perhaps it is because she is a woman. In the case of the Politico piece, which was written by a woman, I can draw from the conclusions in my book – women are often the toughest on their own. But whether the attacks come from women or men in the media, it does seem that strong female advisors who are close to the president become the focus of the most hostile and catty criticism. Whether it was the horrific caricatures of Condi Rice, or the snide sneers aimed at Karen Hughes, or today’s unfair focus on Valerie, at this point the whole “blame-the-woman” routine is just getting old.
Brzezinski ignores the entire premise of the Politico piece. Jarrett had nothing to do with managing the Democratic Party loss in the midterm elections. According to Politico, after a horrible midterm loss, Presidents usually get rid of some of their top advisers, and Jarrett should be targeted because she is Obama's closest adviser.
