Chairman Hu Jintao recognized it as soon as he heard it. Patriotic Chinese Internet users were delighted as soon as they saw the videos online. Early morning TV viewers in China knew it would be played an hour or two beforehand. At the White House State dinner on Jan. 19, about six minutes into his set, Lang Lang began tapping out a famous anti-American propaganda melody from the Korean War: the theme song to the movie “Battle on Shangganling Mountain."...
The movie and the tune are widely known among Chinese, and the song has been a leading piece of anti-American propaganda by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for decades....
The song Lang Lang played describes how beautiful China is and then near the end has this verse, “When friends are here, there is fine wine /But if the jackal comes /What greets it is the hunting rifle.” The “jackal” in the song is the United States....
“In the eyes of all Chinese, this will not be seen as anything other than a big insult to the U.S.,” says Yang Jingduan, a Chinese psychiatrist now living in Philadelphia who had in China been a doctor in the Chinese military. “It’s like insulting you in your face and you don’t know it, it’s humiliating...
[One] Chinese commenting on a forum responded to the Lang Lang performance by writing, “Defeat America, defeat Obama” (writing Obama’s name with the wrong first character, one meaning “sunken” or “dented.”)
IN THE COMMENTS: Irene says:
The media in general will make less of this than they did of Michaele and Tareq Salahi.
This is "fuck you, ignorant barbarians" crashing.
William says:
Didn't the Red Chinese lose tens of thousands of men in the Korean War in order to insure the prolonged rule of one of the most fucked up regimes in that region's long history of fucked up regimes? I would think that playing that tune is more likely to remind the world of the stupidity of Communist rulers than humiliate the United States. I think Obama should get Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen to write a commemorative song about Carter's failed rescue mission to Iran. He should play that song at all state functions. Same deal as this.
When the Obamas announced that the New Orleans native with the platinum résumé and the knack for glamorous style would be the White House's first African American social secretary, the fashion industry practically swooned. The nation's capital, dominated for 20 years by administrations that, at best, endured fashion, now had a first lady who chose her designer wardrobe like a savvy insider. She and her husband hired a host of attractive young staffers who didn't mind posing for the occasional fashion spread -- Birkin bag in hand, feet shod in trendy platform heels -- and a social secretary who knew the difference between Nina Ricci and Lanvin and regularly wore both. The industry could not believe its good fortune! At long last, it had a diverse array of intelligent and respected women in federal Washington who, by their appearance alone, served as powerful advocates for an often-maligned business.
Hired a host of attractive young staffers... You mean they practiced lookism?
Was Rogers engaging in what one magazine editor described as "an arrogance of style" -- using her clothes for competitive one-upmanship rather than to exude personal creativity, self-confidence or self-respect? Or could a city of wonks and political animals simply not grasp what Rogers was saying?
In federal Washington, after all, a modest Armani suit still can get one a best-dressed award. For that crowd, taking the measure of Rogers, a special assistant to the president, dressed in Prada and Jil Sander, would have been a bit like someone trying to make sense of an NFL team's strategy diagram based on their knowledge of Foosball.
I certainly can't understand what Givhan is saying about why Rogers lost her job. It was too hard to understand the high level of sophistication of her fashion? I'm trying to read between the lines as Givhan obviously means to lavishly promote Rogers. Was the problem that Rogers created the wrong image for the Obamas and made them look profligate and frivolous?
After the jump, I read some more sources and summarize a few theories.
[Rogers] came under fire after uninvited guests made their way into the first Obama state dinner...
And she didn't appear at the congressional investigation of the incident — supposedly because the White House didn't let her.
Some detractors also faulted her for breaking unspoken rules of the job — dressing in eye-catching designer-wear and assigning herself a seat at the state dinner.
Could it really be that she dressed too well? Too conspicuously well? Too it's-all-about-me well?
“It has nothing to do with being glamorous, that is all make-believe in the eyes of the press. This is who I am, this is how I dress, I’ve always dressed this way, it’s all a matter of your taste,” she said.
I just can't buy this don't-hate-me-because-I'm-beautiful routine. But if there is lookism to begin with, there might be backlash against the conspicuously beautiful.
Ms. Rogers says she is leaving the White House with a framework for mounting events that are not only glittering but socially meaningful. She recalled in particular a concert of Latin music several months ago. “To see the Latin entertainers perform, to see them keep them looking back at the White House, and be able to do that in front of the newly elected Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, there’s nothing more rewarding,” she said.
Hmmm. Does that kind of thing ever become embarrassing? Endlessly pointing at a person's ethnicity? Having people assume that your taste in things like music follow your ancestry? Most people don't even want to hear their parents' music.
Here are Anne Kornblut and Krissah Thompson in WaPo:
[B]eing [a Washington] outsider ... helped undo Rogers, whose runway outfits and magazine shoots -- and an I-make-my-own-rules attitude -- drew criticism from political circles and within corners of the administration. Her lack of familiarity with the ways of Washington culminated in the State Dinner disaster last December, when two poseurs crashed the party and dominated headlines for weeks.
Now, in replacing Rogers, the White House has tapped a savvy insider with a track record of managing political egos and staging huge political events. In naming Julianna Smoot, who has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for Democratic candidates, and presided over the Obama campaign's nearly half-billion haul, the administration has placed a person highly skilled in "donor maintenance" at the center of running the White House social operation. Smoot, who has been working as chief of staff of U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, becomes the gatekeeper for the guest lists for any number of exclusive events with the president and first lady.
So, it sounds like maybe it's part of Phase 2 of the Obama Presidency: The Reelection Campaign. Rogers was Phase 1: The Inauguration Celebration. Under this theory, which is probably the best one, it wasn't about the clothes, it was simply that donor maintenance had to take precedence over the beautiful people.
"[Smoot] has no problem dealing with quote-unquote 'important people,' but she doesn't put herself up on a pedestal," Democratic strategist Steve Hildebrand said of Smoot. "She doesn't see herself as a member of the social elite, and she certainly shies away from press." When Rogers wore a Commes des Garcon gown to the state dinner for the Indian prime minister, she garnered as much attention throughout the media as Michelle Obama, which was noted with some displeasure inside the White House.
Oh, there's an angle! Michelle needed to be the prettiest. There is the rift, perhaps.
Some of the rules are more explicit than others. "A social secretary's job is to help the first family put their own social mark on the White House," Sheila Tate, Nancy Reagan's former press secretary, told Daily Beast columnist Sandra McElwaine. "If it becomes about them," the social secretary and his or her staffers, "then there's a problem."
As long-time readers know, I love Desiree Rogers. I love all Michelle's homies who rolled into D.C. wanting to set the world on fire in three inch heels. I think they're AWESOME. Look at this woman! Just look at her! She is fierce. Yeah, folks complained with there "Just WHO does that woman think she is?" She knows who she is! She's mutha frakkin' Desiree Rogers! The men all PAUSE when she walks into a room!...
My girl Dezzie just rolls out of a feather bed of opulent ridiculousness and strolls through life on a pair of Sparkle Ponies called "Brains" and "Sex Appeal." That's just her EVERYDAY. Yeah, you're looking at it and you're checking it out. She can't help she's a star and you just want to gaze upon her! Stars are supposed to shine like that!
So you wanted her to be humble and beg you to love her? I'm sorry. Zulu Queens don't DO that. They don't beg. They don't cry. They don't ask for permission. They don't play nice....
Desiree, on the behalf of mere mortals everywhere I just want to say I'm sorry that the world could not handle such an incredible magnitude of New Orleans-by-the-way-of-Chitown black girl savvy. (Don't slap her, because she's NOT in the mood.) And I'm sorry that the awesome was so great that folks had to get all pearl clutchy and go "That WOMAN is TOUCHING our THINGS!" about you being in the White House.... Folks just mad because you can't kick Michelle Obama out the house, so you'll just break out the long-knives on her long-time friend and associate and get all junior high on it.
So it's not Michelle?
[Desiree is] leaving and taking all her fabulousness with her... Watch the next social secretary be some boring hump who never says anything worth quoting and doesn't know her Kors from her Balenciaga....
Rogers caved in to the black haters group or "BHG"; a set of African Americans in and around Washingon D.C. who acted as if they were jealous of Rogers' role as the first African American White House Social Secretary....
... Washington Post Staff Writer and Fashion Editor Robin Givhan, who is seen as another member of the BHG... and spends much of her column essentially trashing Rogers for being confident, extroverted, and attractive...
But the biggest, most powerful member of the BHG is Desiree Rogers herself, and with respect to her decision to listen to that crowd. By doing so, Rogers robs herself of the chance to grow in the position and fails to leave a positive legacy of work as White House Social Secretary. Every time Rogers name comes up, and her accomplishments are discussed, the conversation will always be followed by "yeah, but" and that's too bad.
Meanwhile, the next White House Social Secretary is reportedly a white woman, thus calming the fears of the BHG, who can't stand to see someone black, female, confident, and extroverted in a role they think should be filled by a white female who remembered to invite them to the next State Dinner.
Hmmm. That strikes me as a tad overemotional. How much love do you need if you perceive Givhan as a hater? The drama!
All right, that's enough for me. As I said above, if I have to pick, I'm saying it's about getting serious about reelection. Second best theory: Michelle demanded (and deserved) to be the most fabulous woman in the White House.
Tiger may have been the greatest pro golfer but he was an amateur adulterer. His puffed-up ego led him to leave an electronic trail with a string of buffed and puffed babes. Like so many politicians before him, Tiger ignored the obvious rule: Never get involved with women who have 8-by-10 glossies.
But Tiger is a private citizen, and he faced potential criminal charges, either for himself or his wife. Dowd doesn't even mention the Constitution in connection with Woods — even as she's going for parallelism — but Woods had a constitutional right not to talk to the police, and I assume he was well advised by lawyers as he chose not to talk. He had a right to do what he thought was best for himself. The public may be interested in him, and he needs to worry about our loss of respect for him, which would hurt his lucrative career in product endorsement, but he doesn't owe us anything.
Rogers, on the other hand was working for the government, in a position of a public trust, and her refusal to account for herself was quite a different matter. The constitutional provision for executive privilege is not like the individual right against self-incrimination. It's a matter of separation of powers having to do with the ability of the executive branch to function independently. If it is invoked, it should not be Rogers protecting her own interests. It should be because it serves the public good for the executive branch to be free of interference from Congress. It may well be that there are legitimate reasons for maintaining secrecy about the details of planning and carrying out a big White House dinner party. There are some delicate, sensitive matters in party planning, no? One could imagine Congress picking apart such things for the devious purpose of distracting and weakening the President.
Dowd says:
Both Tiger and Desiree hid and stayed silent because they mistakenly thought they were protecting the Brand. But despite their marketing savvy, these two controlling players spiraled out of control.
That sounds clever and amusing, but only if you don't try to imagine what Woods and Rogers might be hiding and how, if they spoke, their words would be used to damage them further. Dowd assumes that the truth has or will come out: "Don’t stonewall. Admit your mistake before others piece together the embarrassing facts." That is: It's the cover-up, not the crime. It will hurt more if you don't come clean. But I think there are things about what happened the night Woods ran into the tree that will never come to light. And who knows what more there is to the gate-crashers story? It sounds pretty frivolous, and we are expected to get over it. A slight glitch that represents nothing else of any concern. But is it?
Rush Limbaugh — speaking on the radio right now — does not believe the story of the state dinner gate-crashers. He's suggesting they were, in fact, on the guest list, and the White House later found a reason to want to distance itself from them. He notes that when he's gone to a White House function — he, a very recognizable celebrity — he has had to give his Social Security number and go through multiple checkpoints with the Secret Service. There is something more to this, he wants us to know.
ADDED: Is the Secret Service taking a fall for Obama even as Tiger Woods is (perhaps) taking a fall for Elin Nordegren? That is, perhaps, there is a damaging connection between the gate-crashers and the Obama administration, and the Secret Service is absorbing the blow by taking the blame, when in fact it made no mistake. And Tiger Woods, perhaps, is saying that he's to blame for his accident...
The only person responsible for the accident is me. My wife, Elin, acted courageously when she saw I was hurt and in trouble. She was the first person to help me. Any other assertion is absolutely false.
... when it may be that Elin did things that are, in fact, crimes.
