Forget Afghanistan. The question consuming Washington isn't troop deployments, but something far more significant -- the blatant failure of White House social secretary Desiree Rogers to deploy her troops to help protect the Obamas from insurgents like the Salahis. Both the New York Times' Maureen Dowd and the Washington Post's Robin Givhan lay into Rogers today for bungling the first official state dinner of the Obama administration. Along the way, lots of new details emerge about Rogers and her role in promoting what she likes to call the Obama Brand.
Rogers emerges as a figure out of Vanity Fair -- preening and self-indulgent, lording it over her table at the state dinner, while ignoring her own mundane duties such as ensuring that someone from her office was at the Secret Service check-point. According to Givhan, "The 50-year-old Rogers arrived in Washington this year to great fanfare, no small amount of it of her own making." She's quickly turned the People's House into Desiree's House. How President Obama handles this episode may provide some real clues to the rest of his presidency. Will he throw Rogers overboard or stick with her?
Dumping Rogers so soon after the ouster of White House counsel Greg Craig would be confirmation that underneath the relaxed veneer, he's a tough boss who doesn't have all that much loyalty to his employees. That's the kind of atmosphere that spawns lots of leaks and an everyone for himself mentality. It may all come down to whether or not Rogers accepts the invitation of the Homeland Security Committee to testify on Thursday about the state dinner. The real question: what was she wearing and when did she wear it?
The stakes could hardly be higher for Obama. It almost makes his decision on Afghanistan look like an easy one. He may conclude that the moment to oust the Harvard MBA-toting, Chicago socialite, Vogue cover girl, Commes des Garcons-wearing social secretary has arrived. If nothing else, it would propitiate official Washington and signal that the outsider phase of Obama's presidency has come to a complete terminus.
I know Desiree from Chicago, and once co-hosted an event with her at my home. She failed to appreciate that the event was taking place in my home, and was incapable of being deferential to me, in my own home. She tried to dictate all of the shots, and overtake me as the "woman of the house."
I was shocked when she was named to her current role, because I knew that she lacked the capacity to be appropriately deferential to the first lady of any house. She has failed to respect Michelle by trying to upstage her on many fronts. She should not dress in a manner that competes with the first lady. She should not pursue media attention in furtherance of her own "brand." She should not request to have a photo shoot in the first lady's garden.
I knew it would only be a matter of time before Desiree proved that she was not in service to the first family, but in service to herself.
Michelle should now realize that she, as first lady, has plenty of taste that is widely acknowledged, and that she does not need the brazen, social climbing Desiree in order to throw events spectacular functions.
Michelle, let your beautiful and kind persona be reflected in your entertaining, and hire a social secretary who understands that her job is to implement YOUR vision.
Thank you for your insight. There is no better reference than from one who's "been there". It is my opinion that as long as Valerie Jarrett has the President's ear, Ms. Rogers has a job. I take the party crashing incident very seriously, I lived through the Kennedy assasination, and never want to see anything even close to that again. It's not as if she needs the money, Ms Rogers should save everyone embarassment and resign.
As an American living abroad I was so touched by this new and fresh approach. To claim the person responsible for the magical atmosphere is mere "Help" is insulting. How ignorant of social functions can one be to assume Ms. Rogers should walk around with a clip board and check off names. Yes, perhaps she should have had someone on her staff at the door. I am certain she will have in the future, but to shred her instead of celebrating the accomplishment is pathetic. The Obamas have gone out of their way to to be inclusive, even mentoring young people on the day of the party!
Ironic that those who claim to be the most patriotic are the first to bash every effort. Do they not realize how those of us living away from home and the rest of the world look at this bile and the respect for All of America plummets? Apparently not.
We all knew, as she must have, that this event would be held to a higher standard than any other former State Dinner in the White House. That it would have been under the strongest microscope of scrutiny for any imperfection to be offered up in glee to the feeding frenzy awaiting in the wings. This standard the President and First Lady know so well, as do millions of African-Americans. And, as expected, snooty and snobby former Bush-aides jump at the chance to denigrate the performance of Ms. Rogers.at every media opportunity possible. My hope is that Ms. Rogers gets a chance to redeem herself and demonstrate her many skills and abilities further, as she has in the past.
I referred to Deisree as the "help" in one posting, and in another, I said she didn't know her place. I am an African American woman, and I did not mean it in a racist way at all. Ms Rogers is clearly an impressive woman, but I believe she is ill-suited for this job. I thought her front row seats with Anna Wintour were incredibly distasteful and I knew it was a matter of time before something like this happened.
I don't think it's racist to say so, and Robin Givhan said very nearly the same thing, with slightly different words.