Margaret Sullivan over at Washington Post is busy whining over the coverage of the female Democrat candidates for the 2020 presidential race are already receiving, claiming it is "sexist." Ignoring the exact same, and "equal" type of coverage many, many male candidates have received, (we will provide examples since she obviously doesn't know how to use a search engine!), she blatantly tries to claim the women are victims, when in fact, that is the furthest thing from the truth.
Her headline sets her fictional stage: "How sexist will the media’s treatment of female candidates be? Rule out 'not at all'."
Sullivan begins, of course, with the claim that Hillary Clinton's campaign was "seriously marred by sexism," and arrogantly asserts that if you disagree you are a troll and can "proceed directly to social media, Fox News, my email or wherever trolls gather."
The obsession with Clinton’s voice (shrill), her laugh (witchlike), her purported lack of stamina, her marriage, her supposedly inauthentic love of hot sauce — combined with the constant analysis of how voters simply couldn’t warm up to her — is still all too fresh.
First off, from a woman, Clinton's voice is shrill, and mentioning it is not sexist at all, I am on record as being unable to listen to Barack Obama speak as well, I used to read his transcripts when I had to write about a speech, nothing sexist about it, some people simply have voices that others find annoying. As to Clinton's laugh, she didn't laugh, she cackled..... yes, exactly like the stereotypical witch.
That aside, I remember multiple "reports" on Donald Trump from before the 2016 presidential election and after, about his "laugh," or lack of one.
CNN headline, April 2018: "James Comey says Donald Trump never laughs. Is he right?" The Nation, September 2016: "Have You Ever Seen Donald Trump Laugh?" Business Insider, April 2018: "James Comey never saw Trump laugh, searched YouTube for clips." New York Times, September 2017: "Is Nothing Funny, Mr. President?" The Atlantic, September 2016: "Does Donald Trump Know How to Laugh?"
Salon, Forbes and many others thought The Donald's laugh, and/or lack of laughing, was important and newsworthy, and I cannot find one time where Ms. Sullivan claimed that was sexist.
Then we have Sullivan's mention of Clinton's lack of stamina, which considering how many accidents, trips and falls, and the fact that she passed out publicly at the 9/11 Memorial and had to be lifted/carried into the back of a van, leaving a shoe laying on the ground after the van roared off, seems like a legitimate concern in regards to a presidential candidate and her fitness to perform the duties of the president.
The point here is the coverage of Clinton, to which I personally wrote about often, was not sexist, it was critical and based on how I saw her, as were many reports, but Ms. Sullivan seems to be under the impression that "equality" is only welcome between men and women when it benefits the woman, but writers and pundits should not be allowed to provide "equal" critical coverage of a female, or liberals like Sullivan will scream SEXISM!
2020 FEMALE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES - SEXIST COVERAGE OR 'EQUAL' REPORTING : YOU DECIDE
Moving right along because Sullivan has complaints about the "equal" coverage the female presidential candidates are receiving now, while once again pretending the exact same type of coverage was not provided to male president candidates, but we have multiple examples of that being entirely untrue, despite Sullivan being willfully ignorant of it.
Kamala Harris: Ms. Sullivan complains about the coverage of Senator Kamala Harris, stating "The long-ago love life of Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) has been parsed, as has what music she partied to as a Howard University undergrad."
1) Kamala's love life is in the news because former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown admitted publicly that he had a relation with Harris, while he was married and that during that relationship he gave her "appointments that furthered her career," according to USA Today and other outlets.
I am sure President Trump's supporters would be happy to remind Ms. Sullivan of the obsession her own outlet, as well as every other media outlet, had with his sexual history during the 2016 campaign.
When Google is searched for "Donald Trump affairs" the number of results listed is 84,100,000. Yes, that is 84 million stories about Trump's "love-life." When using the advanced function to set a custom range of July 1, 2015 to November 8, 2016, before the election, every single liberal establishment outlet covered it. Washington Post, USA Today, CNN, NYT, Bloomberg, The Hill, Politico, are just some of the outlets that pop up in just the first two pages, with some having more than one entry.
So, no, a person's love-life is not off the table just because she is a woman. Frankly I didn't care about Trump's love-life or that of any other candidate, because when deciding on who to support for president, I wasn't considering whether he would make good husband material, wasn't looking for a monk, a priest, or a moral compass, I was voting for someone to lead the country.
With that said, if the media will "parse," or obsess over a male candidates love-life, then EQUALITY, BABY, the same rules should apply to female candidates.
Kirsten Gillibrand: Sullivan then goes on to point out the coverage of Gillibrand, saying "Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s uncertainty about how to eat fried chicken has been ruthlessly mocked."
It is sexist to mock people for how they eat food? Hmmmmmmmmmm......
She may want to talk to The Guardian, ABC News, Chicago Tribune, Daily Dot, and Newsweek, for obsessing on how Donald Trump eats his Pizza (with a fork and knife,) as well as CNN, QZ, Huffington Post, AOL, Wapo, and others for having a news frenzy over how Trump eats his fried chicken. Politico did the same thing to John Kasich.
Also remember that CNN considered it news worthy to not only mention that President Trump at chicken with a knife and fork, but took it further and created and entire video segment on the fact that *GASP* he likes two scoops of ice cream on his pie!
Ms. Sullivan should get right on that and start scolding those sexist pigs!!!
Elizabeth Warren: Then Sullivan claims the criticisms of Senator Elizabeth Warren is also part of these imaginary "sexist" attacks.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy was in trouble even before she declared because of the senator from Massachusetts identifying herself as Native American. (This was a real blunder, to be sure, but not the career-ending one it’s often portrayed as.)
She doesn't mention how Warren doubled down with her infamous DNA test that showed she had 1/1024th Native American DNS, which was heavily criticized on both sides of the aisle, from both men and women, and Warren's continued self-inflicted wounds by refusing to simply apologize and then shut the heck up about that idiocy.
Sullivan then goes on and on, ad nauseam, as to why women are treated differently than men, yet as shown above, they are not, they are in fact being covered far less than male candidates for the same type of issues.
BOTTOM LINE: SUCK IT UP BUTTERCUP, IT WILL CONTINUE
To Ms. Sullivan: Suck it up buttercup, we will not be holding back just because these Democrat candidates are women.
As a feminist, Sullivan should be encouraging equal coverage, not whining because these poor little "victims (in Sullivan's eyes) happened to be born female and are receiving the same type of coverage that every male candidate receives.
Isn't that what feminism is about? Equality?
FEBRUARY/MARCH FUNDRAISER:Despite generous donations, the still dwindling advertising revenue over the course of the last two years has forced us to completely deplete all our savings just to survive and continue to keep All News PipeLine online.
During the months of February and March, ANP is running a fundraising drive. PLEASE HELP KEEP ANP ALIVE BY DONATING USING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card: