Speaking of the Desiree Rogers piece, am I to understand that Rogers is facing extra scrutiny over the Salahi debacle because of her reputation as too high-profile and glamorous?
No one seems to seriously be questioning Rogers' competence or work ethic. (There is, in fact, a reference to her rep as an overachieving perfectionist.) Rather, the entire piece is about how Rogers has been raising eyebrows around the Beltway from day one with her unwillingness to fade into the background, to operate behind the scenes, to--bluntly put--know her place. Other social secretaries have always understood that they should avoid the limelight, the WaPo points out. But Rogers was a kick-up-her-heels, high-flying society type back in Chicago, we are reminded, and political watchers have long wondered if perhaps she is ill suited for the ways of Washington, where supporting players are supposed to be more self-effacing and discreet. (Er, has anyone told Rahm Emmanuel about this mandate?)
If a screw up by Rogers indeed led to those socialite freakshows getting into the state dinner, by all means slap her for it--hard--and let the White House deal with the fallout. But the sense you get from the WaPo is that lots of folks have been positively drooling in anticipation of a chance to take Rogers down a peg for her failure to observe some b.s. standard of Beltway decorum.
How sorority row can you get?