Patterico's Pontifications

4/12/2015

NY Post Cover Makes Eric Boehlert Very Unhappy

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:11 am



[guest post by Dana]

As Americans anxiously await Hillary Clinton’s formal announcement that she will run for president, the NY Post is taking heat for today’s cover:

Untitled-1

Via Twitchy, Eric Boehlert is having a bit of a hissy fit about it:

and so it begins….@nypost mocks Hillary as an “aging hoofer” “close to her expiration date.”

So far, polite silence from DC pundits in the face of rancid anti-Hillary misogyny from @nypost; that’s how the media game gets played.

and if you think DC press will condemn that kind of rancid sexism, you slept through 2008;

As we learned in 2008, RW sexist commentary was oddly okay, even among “liberal” commentators, if it was targeted at Hillary. Still true?

Funny how Boehlert is not an equal-opportunity accuser of ageism and sexism, or simultaneous acts of ageism and sexism.

–Dana

ADDED: I wanted to note that it’s ironic that Hillary is not even yet officially out of the gate and already a man is defending her and attempting to shield her. I would think that any woman running for president and worth her feminist salt, would reject his defense of her, tell him to back off, and then get to the business of being an equal-opportunity candidate. Sort of like another female public figure recently did.

53 Responses to “NY Post Cover Makes Eric Boehlert Very Unhappy”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. If a silly cover ranks as misogyny, sexism and ageism, what happens when opponents throw down with Hillary and attack her on real issues like foreign policy, the economy, national defense??? Is everything sacrosanct because it’s will all be a war on womyn?

    Dana (86e864)

  3. Maureen Dowd:

    President Obama has said: “If she’s her wonderful self, I’m sure she’s going to do great.” But which self is that?

    Instead of a chilly, scripted, entitled policy wonk, as in 2008, Hillary plans to be a warm, spontaneous, scrappy fighter for average Americans. Instead of a woman campaigning like a man, as in 2008, she will try to stir crowds with the idea of being the first woman president. Instead of haughtily blowing off the press, as in 2008, she will make an effort to play nice.

    It’s a do-or-die remodeling, like when you put a new stainless steel kitchen in a house that doesn’t sell.

    Heh.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-grandmama-mia.html?_r=0

    elissa (a01764)

  4. Related.

    http://soopermexican.com/2013/08/17/thin-skinned-much-ready-for-hillary-pac-lawyer-takes-aim-at-my-clinton-logo-parodies/

    Is it possible to be a Hillary! supporter and not come with panties predisposed to want to twist into a bunch? I think not.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  5. Who is the real Hillary!?

    It’s the one who keeps hiring image consultants to rebrand the old Hillary! as the new Hillary!

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  6. Actually, NYPost showed some restraint. That picture of her on the paper’s cover is not nearly as bad as what they *could* have used.

    elissa (a01764)

  7. granny panties twistered up

    or maybe just depends

    holy astronaut diapers batman

    where’s Mr. buttons

    happyfeet (831175)

  8. And who can forget The Atlantic’s “ghouling” of McCain?

    Dana (86e864)

  9. It’s a do-or-die remodeling, like when you put a new stainless steel kitchen in a house that doesn’t sell.

    I see this a lot in my neighborhood: 900 sf 1940’s house on 6000 sf lot, remodeled kitchen. Purchased for the value of the lot and bulldozed.

    You CAN put lipstick on a pig, but you are just wasting good lipstick.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  10. The very first question to ask:

    Why Hillary? What does she bring except mistakes?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  11. What, exactly, is ageist sexist misogyinst and racist about saying “Oh Hill No … No no no no no no no no”

    Is “no” now an objectionable word, causing Boehlert to get the vapors for the 7364829th time?

    JD (7f7589)

  12. what happens when opponents throw down with Hillary and attack her on real issues like foreign policy

    This. Barack Obama’s foreign policy is a target-rich environment. Ask her today about: Cuba; Iran’s bomb; Israel; ISIS; Venezuela; Russia; The Arab Spring.

    And that’s just off the top of my head. I haven’t seen a less credible candidate since … since … well, ever.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  13. Kevin M,

    Clearly that is misogynistic. As will any other line of questioning be. Basically, Boehlert, and I’m guessing the left in general, will be using this tactic. We are to consider ourselves forewarned about the rules.

    Dana (86e864)

  14. JD,

    They misspelled “Bill”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  15. Which is funny because any woman worth her feminist salt, will say “bring it on”. But already we see a man covering for a woman.

    Dana (86e864)

  16. We are to consider ourselves forewarned about the rules.

    This will work with zero men (although perhaps some males), and not all that many women. A candidate who hides behind her own skirt from actual issues isn’t credible as Presidential material. I HOPE they go there, because it is a flat-out loser.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  17. Great cover!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  18. Ask any woman: would you want a boss who would not deal with facts or be unwilling to explain their choices? Would it be better if that boss were female?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  19. Added to post:

    I wanted to note that it’s ironic that Hillary is not even yet officially out of the gate and already a man is defending her and attempting to shield her. I would think that any woman running for president and worth her feminist salt, would reject his defense of her, tell him to back off, and then get to the business of being an equal-opportunity candidate. Sort of like another female public figure recently did.

    Dana (86e864)

  20. 10. The very first question to ask:

    Why Hillary? What does she bring except mistakes?

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/12/2015 @ 10:35 am

    She has a vagina and you don’t. So. Shut up.

    It’s time! It’s historic! It’s Hillary!

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  21. I recall back in 2008, after 8 years of George W Bush, various Republicans (eg, Peggy Noonan, etc) were suffering from Republican fatigue (or fatigue towards Republicans) and got squishier than they’d otherwise be. Although the economic mess of the stock market back then didn’t help things, there was still what I considered an overly noticeably dour tone expressed by much of the public (eg, the 35% approval rating of Bush). That’s in spite of the basic socio-economic statistics throughout the late 2000s not being quite as pathetic as they are now.

    Here it is 2015 and the US really is taking on the sad-sack qualities of one of those third-world or emerging-world societies (eg, an IRS that even Argentina or Rhodesia should admire) — with dark clouds forming on the horizon — yet Obama (per things like the Gallup Poll) is given a grade much above that of his predecessor during the end of his presidency, while Hillary is given far too much deference by not just the media (NY Post notwithstanding) but by much of the same public reflected in the aforementioned poll.

    If the electorate isn’t suffering from Democrat fatigue at this late date, then, hey, y’all, if it’s good enough for Venezuela, it’s good enough for us!

    Mark (4bad5a)

  22. I really wish I wasn’t here, as the arc of the inevitable right side of history sweeps us toward our epic and glorious future. But I am. And my miserable Christian superstition teaches that suicide is a sin.

    And Gil or Jeff will be along any minute now to tell you I’m a fundie.

    So I guess I’m screwed.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  23. @ Kevin M,

    Ask any woman: would you want a boss who would not deal with facts or be unwilling to explain their choices? Would it be better if that boss were female?

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/12/2015 @ 10:47 am


    Given how many women I have heard claim they don’t care about Hillary’s “issues”, they want a woman in office because “its time”, I don’t think they would answer the way you think they would.

    Dana (86e864)

  24. they want a woman in office because “its time”

    An asterisk needs to be placed next to “woman.” It should read ” *liberal.”

    The same concept applies to “non-white” man (or woman) running for the White House, in 2008 or any other time.

    Most of the people embracing diversity — racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, etc — ultimately care about only one thing: Entrenching or furthering liberalism. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Mark (4bad5a)

  25. Dana -‘it is sexist and misogynist to note that Boehlert is a lying sexist misogynist. And Oliver Willis loves Ho Ho’s.

    JD (7f7589)

  26. It’s treason to speak ill of the Queen.

    Even if it’s true. In fact even more if it’s true.

    Boehlert. Media Matters right?

    tthe group FOUNDED to harass and intimidate conservative (and at the time GOP)
    Candidates. And who has never said a kind thing about any person declared
    right wing.

    And weren’t they founded with Clinton money? Or am I confusing the Hildabeest with
    Soros. They’re looking more and more alike every day. Except Soros may be mellowing.

    jakee308 (49ccc6)

  27. The lemmings are progressing toward the cliff. Falling off a cliff into the ocean is change. Change is hard.

    You conservatives just hate change.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  28. So Teh Narrative is that Hill is the most qualified, successful, accomplished person in America, and as such, she deserves to be President. But despite all her experience and accomplishments, it is sexist and misogynist to oppose her, and she needs left wing backs to call people names to def be her, as she is incapable of dealing with criticism.

    JD (7f7589)

  29. As we learned in 2008, RW sexist commentary was oddly okay, even among “liberal” commentators, if it was targeted at Hillary. Still true?

    What did this mean?
    And wasn’t there a certain female running on the GOP ticket in 2008 who received a ton of sexist commentary?

    seeRpea (d1cf05)

  30. If the electorate isn’t suffering from Democrat fatigue at this late date, then, hey, y’all, if it’s good enough for Venezuela, it’s good enough for us!

    As I have said before, it is highly unusual for a political party to get a third consecutive term in the WH, and when it happens it is always after a strong and successful two-term administration. The people have to be saying “Hell, yes, we want more of that!”

    Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, FDR, Reagan. And no one else in the last 100 years.

    Now, maybe Obama will somehow finish up beloved and successful, but I’m gonna bet not. Hillary is running unopposed because 1) she can’t wait and 2) everyone else can.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  31. 28. So Teh Narrative is that Hill is the most qualified, successful, accomplished person in America…

    JD (7f7589) — 4/12/2015 @ 11:18 am

    And it’s racist, sexist, homophobic, and Islamophobic to ask the question. Name one?

    I’m still marveling at the phenomenon. I was listening to some guy on the news rant about how my fanatic move to the right was disgusting to him, as a Republican. It was a betrayal of Ronald Reagan, who would find no home in my party.

    Excuse me? Were any of my views less than bland when Reagan was preezy?

    They’re still the same.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  32. *FDR in the last is treated as a two-term President because otherwise he needs a pile of asterisks.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  33. It was a betrayal of Ronald Reagan, who would find no home in my party.

    Governor Reagan was further to the Right than President Reagan.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  34. But that’s not the point. The point is, the Karl Roves keep accusing me of radicalizing.

    Is it just me, or is that not mind blowing?

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  35. Karl Rove, one of the creators of ‘compassionate Conservatism’ perhaps the most idiotic political theme of the past 40 years? I wouldn’t worry about his defining of Reaganism. His interest is in not upsetting the apple cart.

    seeRpea (d1cf05)

  36. Yes, big government conservatism is a scourge.

    But, not to go all Markey Mark on you, back in the ’80s when Reagan was President I thought it should be legal to be gay. The Lawrence decision (which I think is a bad one, as constitutional and stupid aren’t the same thing) wasn’t til when?

    But because I’m not totes onboard with gay marriage, I’ve shifted rightward? Since when?

    That’s just one example. I’m sick of the canard that because I haven’t changed, I’ve somehow changed.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  37. Hmmm. Mainstream media mocks Democrat, and someone who objects is getting the “vapors” and his “panties in a bunch.” But god forbid if a mainstream media outlet says something negative about a Republican.

    Jonny Scrum-half (c7cc7e)

  38. It’s fun to watch, Johnny Scrum-half.

    It’s not how you twisted it. But it’s still fun.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  39. God forbid the same media watcher also gets a case of the vapors and his panties in a bunch over those Republicans getting mocked.

    Dana (86e864)

  40. What are acceptable phrases to describe the Boehlert and MediaMutterz reactions, Johnny half-sack?

    JD (7f7589)

  41. Hillary! Because Woman! and because I can set my dinner plate and place setting on her expansive back porch!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  42. http://t.co/NUHKLsun7W

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  43. 41. …her expansive back porch!
    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/12/2015 @ 12:39 pm

    Can you let me not think about that. For a moment.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  44. JD @40 – Forgive me, but it’s hard to type while chuckling at your witty use of “half-sack” in your question to me. In any event, I don’t particularly care about the descriptions of Boehlert’s and other reactions, but I would hope that you can see the hypocrisy of a conservative mocking someone’s complaints about media treatment of a political figure.

    Jonny Scrum-half (c7cc7e)

  45. say what you want about Shrillery!, but you have to admit she’s a crass act.

    redc1c4 (2b3c9e)

  46. She’s just another hot-house flower in need of the protection of men.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  47. @ Johnnyscrum-half,

    I don’t particularly care about the descriptions of Boehlert’s and other reactions, but I would hope that you can see the hypocrisy of a conservative mocking someone’s complaints about media treatment of a political figure.
    But that it’s Eric Boehlert calling out others as misogynistic and sexist, when in fact they aren’t being that, that in itself is hypocrisy when considers he has not called out those on the left for the very behaviors he describes in his tweets.

    Further, it is completely valid to mock one who diminishes the strength of a woman who has entered the political fray of her own volition by feeling the need to defend her. How presumptuous to presume she needs defending. How arrogant to believe that he must protect her from the rather silly cover of the NYPost.

    Your comment makes it clear that you believe hypocrisy can only work one way. I don’t. I don’t see anything hypocritical about pointing out a man protecting and defending one on the left side of the aisle while ignoring far worse happening to those on the right side of the aisle.

    Dana (86e864)

  48. My apologies, I neglected to notate that I was quoting the commenter.

    @ Johnnyscrum-half,

    I don’t particularly care about the descriptions of Boehlert’s and other reactions, but I would hope that you can see the hypocrisy of a conservative mocking someone’s complaints about media treatment of a political figure.

    But that it’s Eric Boehlert calling out others as misogynistic and sexist, when in fact they aren’t being that, that in itself is hypocrisy when considers he has not called out those on the left for the very behaviors he describes in his tweets.

    Further, it is completely valid to mock one who diminishes the strength of a woman who has entered the political fray of her own volition by feeling the need to defend her. How presumptuous to presume she needs defending. How arrogant to believe that he must protect her from the rather silly cover of the NYPost.

    Your comment makes it clear that you believe hypocrisy can only work one way. I don’t. I don’t see anything hypocritical about pointing out a man protecting and defending one on the left side of the aisle while ignoring far worse happening to those on the right side of the aisle.

    Dana (86e864)

  49. Dana@49 – I don’t think that hypocrisy works only one way.

    Johnny Scrum-half (ee77a2)

  50. boehlert was an Salafi apologist back at Salon, and that is inpart why David Brock hired him at Media Matters,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  51. Johnny just doesnt care to bother to even try to understand why the right might criticize the MFM.

    JD (7f7589)

  52. Misogyny is hatred of all women.

    I don’t hate women, I just despise this particular woman and would not like to see her wielding any sort of authority.

    I consider that “common sense”.

    mojo (a3d457)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3969 secs.