Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery


Clara is the Editor-in-Chief of Mother Jones. During her tenure, Mother Jones has won National Magazine Awards for general excellence, relaunched its website, and established bureaus in Washington and New York. Along the way Clara won a PEN award for editing, gave birth, and forgot what it's like to sleep. It probably doesn't help she's on Twitter so much.

Full Bio | Get my RSS |

Clara Jeffery is Editor-in-Chief of Mother Jones where, together with Monika Bauerlein, she has spearheaded an era of editorial growth and innovation, marked by the addition of now 13-person Washington bureau, an overhaul of the organization's digital strategy and a corresponding 15-fold growth in traffic, and the winning of two National Magazine Awards for general excellence. When Jeffery and Bauerlein received a PEN award for editing in 2012, the judges noted: "With its sharp, compelling blend of investigative long-form journalism, eye-catching infographics and unapologetically confident voice, Mother Jones under Jeffery and Bauerlein has been transformed from what was a respected—if under-the-radar—indie publication to an internationally recognized, powerhouse general-interest periodical influencing everything from the gun-control debate to presidential campaigns." In addition to their success on the print side, Jeffery and Bauerlein's relentless attention to detail, boundless curiosity and embrace of complex subjects are also reflected on the magazine's increasingly influential website, whose writers and reporters often put more well-known and deep-pocketed news divisions to shame. Before joining the staff of Mother Jones, Jeffery was a senior editor of Harper's magazine. Fourteen pieces that she personally edited have been finalists for National Magazine Awards, in the categories of essay, profile, reporting, public interest, feature, and fiction. Works she edited have also been selected to appear in various editions of Best American Essays, Best American Travel Writing, Best American Sports Writing, and Best American Science Writing. Clara cut her journalistic teeth at Washington City Paper, where she wrote and edited political, investigative, and narrative features, and was a columnist. Jeffery is a graduate of Carleton College and Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism. She resides in the Mission District of San Francisco with her partner Chris Baum and their son, Milo. Their burrito joint of choice is El Metate.


One Person Who Won't Be Voting For Giuliani: His Daughter

| Mon Aug. 6, 2007 12:17 PM EDT

Slate breaks the story today that Rudy's own daughter would rather Barack Obama become president than her own dad.

According to the 17-year-old Caroline Giuliani's Facebook profile, she's supporting Barack Obama.

On her profile, she designates her political views as "liberal" and—until this morning—proclaimed her membership in the Facebook group "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)." According to her profile, she withdrew from the Obama group at 6 a.m. Monday, after Slate sent her an inquiry about it.

So his son hates him. And his daughter won't vote for him. And then there are the two ex-wives who, one imagines, will have plenty to say about him, especially Donna Hanover.

He may go by "America's Mayor" but Mr. Family Man, he ain't.

Advertise on

Canadian Controversy Over Mother Jones' Article of a Doctor's Account of Cpl. Megeney's Death: The Editors Respond

| Sat Aug. 4, 2007 2:36 PM EDT

There's a lot of controversy in Canada over the Mother Jones article by Dr. Kevin Patterson, "Talk to Me Like My Father: Frontline Medicine in Afghanistan," published in our July/August issue.

This 7,000 word diary of Dr. Patterson's time serving at the military hospital at Kandahar Air Field culminates with a scene in which Dr. Patterson (a Canadian) is on call when Canadian Cpl. Kevin Megeney, who'd just been accidentally shot by another soldier in his own tent, was brought in to the ER. Cpl. Megeney arrived unconscious, his pupils fixed and dilated. Dr. Patterson and the other doctors at hand tried to do what they could—including opening his chest with a "clamshell incision"—but the bullet had entered his heart.

The controversy started when the The News—a community paper that serves Pictou County, Nova Scotia, where parts of the Megeney family live—reported that George Megeney, Cpl. Megeney's uncle, was upset that Dr. Patterson described the methods used to try to save his nephew, and did not disguise his identity:

"Had he not identified Kevin, it would have been bad enough," he said. The use of the soldier's name – and lack of permission from the family to identify him – has Megeney questioning the author's ethics.
He said the first the family heard of the article was when he and Kevin's parents received a letter from Mother Jones advising them that the magazine was publishing a story with graphic content about the death, and offering to send them copies of the magazine prior to publication.

Which is more or less correct. But what The News failed to report (in part because it didn't talk to us or Dr. Patterson) in its initial article was that I spoke to Cpl. Megeney's mother at length by phone and that even after reading the article, some members of the immediate family wrote us to thank us for publishing the article and Dr. Patterson for doing all he could to try to save Cpl. Megeney. Here's the response that I posted on our website after a few people who'd read The News article wrote in to express their outrage:

As the co-editor of Mother Jones, I would like to make a few things clear in regards to the part of this story that involves Cpl. Kevin Megeney. First, we sent a letter to Cpl. Megeney's parents, uncle, and sisters, ahead of publication, informing them that this 7,000 word diary of a doctor's month of service at Kandahar Air Field did contain a scene involving the tragic death of their son. That it was written by a doctor present when Cpl. Megeney was brought in for emergency surgery, and that it would likely be disturbing to those close to him. We offered to send it to them or any intermediary they would like if they thought it would be too disturbing to read it themselves.
I then spoke with Mrs. Megeney by phone at length. She assured me that the family would like to see the article, and that she was a nurse and would read it before any other members of her family; she said it would help to have closure to know more about what happened. We heard from other members of the family who also wanted to read it, and some whom, after they did, expressed the desire to write to Dr. Patterson "to express my appreciation to him for exhausting every effort to save [him]." They asked that we link to Cpl. Megeney's memorial site, which we were already planning on doing, so our readers would have a chance to express their condolences [they've since asked that it be removed. See below].
As to the question of anonymity: The death of Cpl. Megeney was an extremely well covered story in Canada. There was no way to write about the incident and not have it be instantly clear to any member of his family or any member of the Canadian press, or anyone who'd followed the story who we were talking about simply by omitting his name. So we felt it would be false anonymity at best. Doctors can and do publicly talk about how patients die when the story is already in the news--consider press conferences following tragic accidents. And there was certainly nothing in this account that disparaged Cpl. Megeney, who served his country admirably and died in a tragic accident.
This was an extremely emotional story to work on. The account of Cpl. Megeney's death was particularly poignant, but there were many other stories in there of death and injury to soldiers and civilians that are hard to read. But in our opinion for the greater public to live in denial about what happens in a war does a disservice to those soldiers who serve and the civilians who are affected.

I could go into greater detail about our correspondence with the Megeney family, but I'm not going to. They have the right to disagree amongst themselves or to change their minds, individually or collectively, about their reaction to the article. And they have a right to express those views publicly. Their loss and their grief is their own.

But now, perhaps emboldened by (or having stirred up) this controversy, the Canadian military has announced that it will investigate if Dr. Patterson—who is a veteran of the Canadian army but went over there as a civilian because the Canadian army (like our own) is running out of enlisted doctors—violated any military rules or ethics by writing about the event. (No one, I might add, is questioning the factual basis of the article, which was rigorously fact-checked. Just whether it was okay to recount the facts.)

Now, I can't look into the military's heart and know why it is investigating Dr. Patterson. But I can say that in multiple conversations I've had in the past 24 hours with various members of the Canadian press, they've all told me off the record that they a) thought the article was great, sensitive to all parties, and responsible b) an antidote to the sanitized coverage of the war c) that the Canadian military was mostly upset because this kind of realistic account of the war (or any war) "hurts recruiting," and d) they get upset whenever they can't control the press. Particularly around a friendly-fire incident, as the Pat Tillman incident has taught Americans quite well.

I can however speak to Dr. Patterson's character, which is being maligned by some on various comments boards. I've known Dr. Patterson for nearly a decade. In addition to serving Canada in the military as young man, he took the risk to go to Afghanistan and treat allied personnel and Afghan civilians. He's also worked in Inuit and tropical communities treating TB patients (which he wrote about in "The Patient Predator" for Mother Jones; the reporting inspired his novel Consumption, which has just come out to rave reviews.). In sum, he's not only a great writer, but a truly fine human being. Were I, or anyone I loved, sick or injured, I could only hope to come under the care of someone as compassionate as he.

And on the subject of compassion: At the Megeney family's request, we've removed the link to Kevin Megeney's memorial site as some people on our site—that means you, "Jackie"—were using it to mock the family. Those posts have been deleted and we will continue to monitor. I would ask any visitor to our site that no matter what your feelings about the war in Afghanistan or Iraq that you not conflate your political opinions with other people's loss.

You can read more about the controversy at the Globe and Mail here and subsequent comments, where I've weighed in, but that has mostly deteriorated into a shouting match about the war itself here. A CBC radio interview with Dr. Patterson can be found here. And an account by the (Nova Scotia) Chronicle Herald, is here. More from The News here and here. And of course people have weighed in on our site here.

You can also view a photo essay by Canadian photographer Lana Slezic on the plight of women in Afghanistan. And CNN terror analyst and Taliban expert Peter Bergen lists ten reasons why the war in Afghanistan is starting to look more like Iraq here.

Law & Order and Campaign Finance (Or: What Will TNT Do Without Fred Thompson?)

| Thu Jul. 26, 2007 10:35 AM EDT

In the campaign finance system, there are two separate yet equally important groups: candidates who have a myriad of film and television credits to their name and the networks who broadcast them. These are their stories:

Wondering why Fred Thompson is taking achingly long to throw his hat in the ring? Well NPR had a nice bit this morning on what role "Law & Order" might have to do with it. Seems that according to "equal time" provisions of campaign finance law, NBC would have to provide Thompson's competitors commercial time that would amount to the time Thompson is on camera in each episode.

Which isn't a lot. According to the formula of "Law & Order," the DA figure (now played by Thompson) typically appears three or four times. One: to urge Jack McCoy to take a deal/and or bemoan how the case will hurt his reelection changes. Two: to yell at Jack when he/the cops screw up. Three: Twist in case requires sage insight and/or reprise point one. Four: Witty bot mot at end of episode, typically over a glass of what looks to be mighty fine bourbon.

Still, that probably adds up to 5 minutes. And if NBC had to give all of Thompson's primary opponents 5 minutes of prime time, that could add up. So NBC has decided to stop airing any repeats that contain Thompson once he announces (all hail, Adam Schiff!), and next season Sam Waterson (aka Jack McCoy) will be promoted to DA. (Which, I might add, makes no sense, given how Jack has done everything in his power to piss off the political establishment and voters low these many, many, many years.)

TNT, however, since they are not a broadcast network is taking the stand that it does not have to provide equal time, and is free to continue running "Law & Order" episodes containing Thompson over and over and over and over and over....

To say nothing of The Hunt for the Red October, which they play with mind-boggling regularity.

But there's some chatter that the cable exception to equal time could be challenged and the Thompson campaign would be the test case. So if you're with Fred, the actor, better watch him now, before everything from In the Line of Fire to No Way Out to Curly Sue to old episodes of "Bonanza" get scrubbed from TV Land. The concept, not the channel. Wait, that too!

Morning Political Trivia, July 20th Edition

| Fri Jul. 20, 2007 10:29 AM EDT

This morning's question comes courtesy of my friend Dave Olsen:

Which president has a statue erected to him in the classical municipal style (full figure, bronze) declaring him to be our "least memorable president"?

And where is that statue?

Remember, no Googling, just guessing.

Most Recent Update:

"Retraction, Retraction!" that was the phone message I got from last night, but not before Jonathan had updated the post with the "answer" below, which we now know to be entirely subjective.

Here's what happened: Dave emails me the picture, no comment provided. I reply, "Can't make it out, what does it say below Chester Alan Arthur?" He emails back "least memorable president." I ask: "Where is it." And he replies: "Madison Square Park."

Did my friend Dave intentionally mislead me? No, this comes from a long line of trivia/philosophical questions passed around an extended group of friends, ranging from those that divide into bitterly divided camps—Which kind of bacon is better, floppy or crispy? (IMO: crispy).—to those to which there's an answer to which almost everyone can agree upon—such as: What's the worst album title of all time (Reo Speedwagon's "You Can Tune a Piano But You Can't Tune a Fish").

So "most obscure/least known" president was one such question some time back, the mostly agreed upon answer was Chester Alan Arthur (though all the presidents the commentors named were also bandied about). The next day, Dave spots the statue, takes a cell phone pic, and forgets about it until yesterday morning.

So a bad misunderstanding, and mea culpa for not triple checking with Dave. And special apologies to President Arthur, for obscure though he might be, it sounds like he acquitted himself pretty well in office (see below).

Jonathan's Original Update:
The answer is Chester A. Arthur, as commentor Mark guessed. Before moving to the White House as James Garfield's vice president, Arthur was a deputy to New York City political boss Roscoe Conkling. Arthur was an active participant in the world of graft, spoils, and the like, both while in New York and while the vice president, a fact that so angered the president that he at times refused Arthur entry to the White House. Garfield was shot by a supporter of Conkling's — leading to speculation that Arthur had engineered the situation to assume the presidency, a claim that is now generally thought to be false. Upon taking over for Garfield, Arthur, a native of the tiny town of Fairfield, VT, become a champion for civil service reform and largely acquitted himself in the eyes of history.

Said one historian, "No man ever entered the Presidency so profoundly and widely distrusted, and no one ever retired… more generally respected." But clearly someone dislikes him. Here's a picture of that statue we mentioned, which is located in New York City:


Bonus trivia: Arthur served as president from 1881-1885, during which time he never had a VP.

Why Wait for McCain's Big Speech?

| Fri Jul. 13, 2007 8:42 AM EDT

When Mike Cooper of the NYT's Caucus blog has it already?

In a speech he plans to deliver in Concord, N.H., Mr. McCain, who just returned from Iraq last week, plans to cast the 2008 presidential election as a referendum on the war in Iraq – a risky stance, given polls that show the war is increasingly unpopular.
"In November, 2008 the American people will decide with their votes how and where this war will be fought or if it will be fought at all," Mr. McCain plans to say, according to excerpts of the speech obtained from the campaign.
"I have told you how I intend to fight this war," he plans to say. "Other candidates will argue for a different course. Democratic candidates for President will argue for the course of cutting our losses and withdrawing from the threat in the vain hope it will not follow us here. I cannot join them in such wishful and very dangerous thinking. Peace at any price is an illusion and its costs are always more tragic than the sacrifices victory requires. I will stand where I stand today and trust you to give me a fair hearing. There is too much at stake in this election for any candidate to do less."

I'll say this about John McCain: He's a brilliant strategist! Must be that military background. Following a week where seemingly everyone in his campaign quit, was fired, or got caught soliciting gay sex, John McCain did not quaver. No, he looked (or is about to look) straight into the cameras and told the American people he's all for a massively unpopular war.

I tell you, he doesn't need aides, he's so savvy.

Wed Aug. 13, 2014 10:58 PM EDT
Tue Mar. 12, 2013 8:40 PM EDT
Mon Feb. 18, 2013 12:02 AM EST
Fri Apr. 27, 2012 2:00 AM EDT
Sat Feb. 4, 2012 4:34 PM EST
Mon Jan. 23, 2012 10:50 PM EST
Sun Oct. 16, 2011 2:25 AM EDT
Tue Jun. 21, 2011 4:47 PM EDT
Tue May. 3, 2011 2:19 AM EDT
Fri Feb. 4, 2011 4:00 AM EST
Mon Oct. 25, 2010 5:00 AM EDT
Mon Apr. 19, 2010 2:00 AM EDT
Tue Jan. 19, 2010 12:21 AM EST
Mon Jan. 18, 2010 5:40 PM EST
Sat Jan. 16, 2010 12:06 AM EST
Wed Dec. 30, 2009 5:33 AM EST
Thu Dec. 24, 2009 11:49 AM EST
Mon Dec. 7, 2009 3:16 AM EST
Fri Oct. 23, 2009 6:25 AM EDT
Wed Sep. 23, 2009 2:01 AM EDT
Wed Sep. 9, 2009 9:51 PM EDT
Wed Sep. 9, 2009 6:35 PM EDT
Fri Aug. 28, 2009 5:20 PM EDT
Wed Aug. 19, 2009 11:46 PM EDT
Thu Aug. 13, 2009 5:08 PM EDT
Thu Aug. 13, 2009 1:39 PM EDT
Tue Aug. 11, 2009 1:12 PM EDT
Tue Aug. 11, 2009 6:00 AM EDT
Sat Aug. 8, 2009 1:16 PM EDT
Thu Aug. 6, 2009 1:36 PM EDT
Tue Aug. 4, 2009 6:01 PM EDT
Tue Aug. 4, 2009 3:36 PM EDT
Sun Aug. 2, 2009 10:09 PM EDT
Wed Jul. 29, 2009 7:14 PM EDT