Um.

So, here is the headline of an item in the New York Times' "First Draft" political news space: "Hillary Clinton, Privately, Seeks the Favor of Elizabeth Warren."

Now here is the third paragraph from that item—which, by the way, is about a meeting that happened last December: "Mrs. Clinton solicited policy ideas and suggestions from Ms. Warren, according to a Democrat briefed on the meeting, who called it 'cordial and productive.' Mrs. Clinton, who has been seeking advice from a range of scholars, advocates and officials, did not ask Ms. Warren to consider endorsing her likely presidential candidacy."

What, then, does "seeking the favor" mean, exactly? Is it meant to mean that she was seeking advice? Because, although I strongly suspect that Hillary Clinton, who has shown herself to be a politician capable of embracing new policy ideas, welcomes advice from Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is an expert on economic issues, that is not the suggestion here:

The get-together highlighted an early challenge for Mrs. Clinton, who as the Democrats' leading contender for 2016 has all but cleared the field for her party's primary. She is intent on developing an economic platform that can speak to her party's populist wing and excite working class voters without alienating allies in the business community.

That Mrs. Clinton reached out to Ms. Warren suggested that she was aware of how much the debate over economic issues had shifted even during the relatively short time she was away from domestic politics while serving as secretary of state.

...The one-on-one meeting also represented a step toward relationship building for two women who do not know each other well. And for Mrs. Clinton, it was a signal that she would prefer Ms. Warren's counsel delivered in person, as a friendly insider, rather than on national television or in opinion articles. It may also indicate that Mrs. Clinton, who was criticized for running an extremely guarded campaign in 2008, has learned from her mistakes and will reach out more regularly.

So, Hillary Clinton met with Elizabeth Warren in order to make sure she wasn't going to run for president and to make sure she wouldn't shit-talk her in the press. And also because Hillary Clinton made mistakes, in case you'd forgotten how she'd run the worst campaign in the history of campaigns, even though it nearly got her the presidential nomination.

(I'm not saying Clinton's '08 campaign was perfect, because HA HA IT WAS NOT. But this constant refrain about how terrible it was is also very tiring, and not a narrative we see about candidates like Mitt Romney, for instance. Certainly we don't see condescending and infantilizing flourishes about "learning from his mistakes.")

Anyway. In case that wasn't enough, the piece then recounts an entirely typical gossipy anecdote that would only be told about two women:

The meeting in December fell two months after a more awkward encounter: Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Warren crossed paths at a Massachusetts rally for Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee for governor there last year. At that event, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly described Ms. Warren as a champion against special interests and big banks; Ms. Warren, in turn, barely acknowledged Mrs. Clinton, who was the featured guest.

OH DAMN! I also heard Jennifer Aniston nearly missed bumping into Angelina Jolie over a delicious-looking shrimp cocktail! Did anyone get a picture of Bill Clinton and Brad Pitt smoking a doobie in the men's room?!

Good grief.

And then the New York Times will publish some shit about why there aren't more women in politics, without a trace of fucking irony.