December 2, 2017

"Many of the male journalists who stand accused of sexual harassment were on the forefront of covering the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump."

"Matt Lauer interviewed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump in an official 'commander-in-chief forum' for NBC. He notoriously peppered and interrupted Mrs. Clinton with cold, aggressive, condescending questions hyper-focused on her emails, only to pitch softballs at Mr. Trump and treat him with gentle collegiality a half-hour later. Mark Halperin and Charlie Rose set much of the televised political discourse on the race, interviewing other pundits, opining themselves and obsessing over the electoral play-by-play. Mr. Rose, after the election, took a tone similar to Mr. Lauer’s with Mrs. Clinton — talking down to her, interrupting her, portraying her as untrustworthy. Mr. Halperin was a harsh critic of Mrs. Clinton, painting her as ruthless and corrupt, while going surprisingly easy on Mr. Trump. The reporter Glenn Thrush, currently on leave from The New York Times because of sexual harassment allegations, covered Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign when he was at Newsday and continued to write about her over the next eight years for Politico. A pervasive theme of all of these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton was that she was dishonest and unlikable.... It’s hard to look at these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton and not see glimmers of that same simmering disrespect and impulse to keep women in a subordinate place...."

From "The Men Who Cost Clinton the Election," by Jill Filipovic in the NYT.

134 comments:

rhhardin said...

If Hillary had put out she'd be President.

rhhardin said...

Hillary was saving herself for marriage.

buwaya said...

A rather Orwellian insertion into the memory hole.
They are on the hate list now, so their previous acts must be reinterpreted to suit the current party line.

Kevin said...

From "The Men Who Cost Clinton the Election," by Jill Filipovic in the NYT.

So now it's men? I'm so old I remember when it was women who were too weak to vote differently than their husbands demanded.

I guess people of indeterminate gender are up next.

Kevin said...

They are on the hate list now, so their previous acts must be reinterpreted to suit the current party line.

Hillary has always been at war with male feminists in the media.

Jupiter said...

"A pervasive theme of all of these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton was that she was dishonest and unlikable. These recent harassment allegations suggest that perhaps the problem wasn’t that Mrs. Clinton was untruthful or inherently hard to connect with, but that these particular men hold deep biases against women who seek power instead of sticking to acquiescent sex-object status."

Then again, the problem could have been that she was dishonest and unlikable. Certainly, she was dishonest, I hope we can all agree on that.

Ken B said...

It's just that bastard Johnson and this fucking war.

Jupiter said...

Kind of like Jill Filipovic, now that I think of it.

tim in vermont said...

Wow.

cubanbob said...

But for these awful, awful men millions of people who voted for Trump would have voted for Hillary. One really has to be certifiable to believe what this NYT columnist is asserting.

Gahrie said...

Wait...now they're trying to argue that the MSM was too easy on Trump?

Delusional isn't strong enough...these people are mentally disturbed.

Gahrie said...

A pervasive theme of all of these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton was that she was dishonest and unlikable.

If this is true...perhaps it is because Hillary is in fact dishonest and unlikable.

Drago said...

What happens now that Ingas and LLR Chucks heroes in the media have basically identified every single person and group in the nation, other than Hillary, as being responsible for Bill Kristols preferred candidate losing the election?

Earnest Prole said...

Cue the eight-hour Viagra-less schadenboner.

chuck said...

So, how does the treatment of Palin fit into the new narrative? Unlike Hillary, she actually *was* honest and likable.

rhhardin said...

Hillary sleeping her way to the top.

rehajm said...

I thought it was the voters. How naive.

Jupiter said...

"These “Crooked Hillary” narratives pushed by Mr. Lauer, Mr. Halperin, and a long list of other prominent journalists and pundits indelibly shaped the election, and were themselves gendered: Hillary Clinton as a cackling witch, Hillary Clinton a woman it was easy to distrust because she was also a woman seeking power, and what kind of woman does that?"

Apparently, Ms. Filipovic is simply unable to think of any reason why anyone would dislike or mistrust Hillary Clinton other than her sex. Cattle futures? Bimbo eruptions? $500,000.00 fluff speeches? Benghazi? Deplorables? Nah, Hillary is perfection in human form, and only a rancid misogynist could fail to recognize that fact.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, thanks for posting this -- I think. I agree with Jupiter and Gahrie. The fundamental problems with Hillary Clinton was her patent dishonesty and the sad fact that when Barack Obama called her "likeable enough," it was merely his first lie of many to come.

Gahrie said...

What happens now

We get rid of all the Deplorables and replace them with a new electorate. I suggest we get them from Mexico where they are already used to governmental corruption.

Fernandistein said...

hyper-focused

Is that better or worser than just "focused".

A pervasive theme of all of these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton was that she was dishonest and unlikable.

Those men are naughty men.

tcrosse said...

A pervasive theme of all of these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton was that she was dishonest and unlikable.

Well, Obama said she was likeable enough, and praise from Caesar is praise indeed.

glenn said...

Hahahahahaha. ..... ah, hahahahaha.

Bay Area Guy said...

Looking forward to the eventual sequel, "The Woman (not plural) Who Cost Her Own Election."

After losing 2000, didn't Al Gore politely fade into the background with a divorce from Tipper, multi-million green investments and happy ending massages?

Why can't she take a hint?

Earnest Prole said...

To give the theory real wings, Filipovic needs to work Putin's name in somehow.

David Begley said...

Failed liberal policies and her own corruption cost Hillary the election.

Kathryn51 said...

I hope Althouse posted this because she's laughing at Ms. Filipovic and wanted to amuse her blog follwers.

As for the dishonest and unlikeable angle - IIRC, that what all of the polls and focus groups reflected - the US electorate did not like nor did they trust Hillary. Just because Lauer and Halperin noted this in their coverage doesn't mean they were "pushing" the idea.

Oh well, Filipovic is why we got Trump.

gspencer said...

"The Men Who Cost Clinton the Election"

Hmmmmm, if she had had the right stuff to begin with those men would have been tossed aside as just so many falling autumn leaves.

Humperdink said...

Is this an addendum to "What Happened?"?

Humperdink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BADuBois said...

It's that damn Patriarchy. And Johnson. And the war...

donald said...

Nobody, including Jill Fillipoc likes Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Humperdink said...

"I thought it was the voters. How naive."

Ah, not the voters, it's that darn Electoral College. Hillary's SAT's were good enough to get in. I think that's how it works.

MayBee said...

Hahahahhahaha!

And yet if not for Bill Clinton, she'd never have been in the position to run.

Bay Area Guy said...

On the issue of Hillary's likeability, one man cost Hillary an election in 2008 - the esteemed, Senator Barak Obama.

You're likeable, enough, Hillary"

Jupiter said...

According to the NYT exit polls, 58% of whites voted for Trump, vs 37% for Clinton. Clinton received the majority of the votes from all other racial categories reported by the Times. 88% of blacks voted for Clinton. Sounds like a pretty clear case of a race -- ahem -- an election -- decided by misogyny.

Quaestor said...

That commentary by Jill Filipovic encapsulates why feminism is an ideology for idiots. (Though, to be fair, feminism, despite the "ism" can hardly be dignified by the term ideology. I just like the alliteration.)

Feminism demands contradiction. Feminists want to be respected as wise and capable persons worthy of wielding supreme executive power in our republic, and at the same time receive gentle treatment befitting someone emotionally fragile, helpless, and easily wounded. In other words, these women want to be cosseted like children and simultaneously exercise authority over adults.

Matthew Sablan said...

... So. This is how journalism dies. They realize we remember the coverage right?

Gahrie said...

these women want to be cosseted like children and simultaneously exercise authority over adults.

Most modern feminists are indeed spoiled children. Especially academic feminists.

Quaestor said...

Matt Lauer, Marc Halperin, Charle Rose... Not a Russian among them. Jill Filipovic is clearly off the reservation.

wwww said...



The man who cost Clinton the election was A. Weiner.

hawkeyedjb said...

Jeez. So, without 100% slobbering, groveling devotion from the press, Clinton was unable to secure the victory she deserved. Yeah, the 'press in the tank for Republicans' theme has to be the least reported phenomenon of the century. And let's not forget how $100,000 of Russian Facebook ads overcame $1.4 billion of Hillary's campaign spending. That's some magic money. That's some fantasy world Filipovic inhabits.

Matthew Sablan said...

To think. If Abedin had left weiner the first time he messed up, she might have been chief of staff to madam President.

hawkeyedjb said...

Hillary Clinton and her devoted followers show us over and over again the superb leadership skills she would have brought to the presidency: "It's somebody else's fault!"

Etienne said...

What a crock.

Pundits don't cost you the election. What crap. I don't know many people who listen to them on TV, and fewer yet, who read them in the paper.

Clinton's success would have the same odds if she avoided these interviews. Why she submitted to them is of course, part of the dementia.

To me, Clinton lost the election when she lied about her health, and her world wide travels as Secretary of State with her lover.

The final straw was her collapse in New York, when she lost her shoe (probably filled her diapers too). No one wants a cripple as a President, and we sure as hell didn't want Kaine, when we could have Bernie and get a real communist.

Bah!

mccullough said...

Hillary is the only one who cost Hillary the election.

tcrosse said...

Now that Karma has cost all those icky men their jobs, Hillary has a clear path to the presidency in 2020.

Jim at said...

But, I thought it was the Russians.
Or James Comey.
Or Barack Obama.
Or ...

You know. It's almost like it's everybody else's fault the vile, corrupt, lying bitch didn't win.

Almost.

Matthew Sablan said...

This does help my theory that some of the Reckoning is score settling though by deluded Clinton cronies.

Jim at said...

One really has to be certifiable to believe what this NYT columnist is asserting.

I thought the new rule was to avoid mentioning or referring to specific commenters until he or she already posted on the thread.

tim in vermont said...

If Hillary were not so sloppy with classified emails, A. Wiener and his dick pics wouldn't have harmed Hillary. What would it take for lefties to hold Hillary responsible for her own failures?

If that guy hadn't been crossing the street, I never would have hit him and been arrested for drunk driving, Judge.

That would fly.

pdug said...

If you can't get elected president because male journalists are sexists maybe you don't have what it takes to be president

FIDO said...

MEN!

They oogle you

Then they don't oogle you.

They want to have sex with you...until they don't want to have sex with you.

They are relationshipphobes and then they are too clingy.

They never call, they don't text

NOW THEY ARE COSTING US the ELECTION!

Somehow, the answer to all a woman's woes is men.

Color me unimpressed with at least some of their sense of responsibility.



Gahrie said...

Women must never be held responsible for their actions, or be made to feel bad.....even when they run for president.

YoungHegelian said...

I will more or less repeat my observation from the other day -- that HRC & her campaign's condescending & entitled attitude toward the press probably ticked off a lot of press people who were supportive.

Look at it from the viewpoint of the media guys here --- they got a job to do, a show to put on. HRC comes on & dumps her campaign bromides on them & expects them to be thrilled with recycled campaign talking points. The press is left going -- "C'mon, Hil! Throw me a bone here! I've gotta make the news to stay employed!".

But no bones got thrown. No help at all. Just more condescension. You really want to piss someone off big, big time? Make them look bad when they're going out of their way to help you.

tim in vermont said...

If Hillary hadn't tried to avoid oversight by Congress of her activities as Secretary of State, she might be President. Or she might be in jail. Why did she take the risk?

Tank said...

Ha

Haha

Hahaha

Hahahahahahahahaha

They're toxic, these men.

FIDO said...

If she didn't avoid oversight, how else would she have gotten rich selling favors to Muslims, Russians and Chinese Kleptocrats?

tim in vermont said...

It's kind of astonishing how Democrats stop thinking as soon as logic looks like it might lead to blaming Hillary.

Kate said...

Poor Jill. She thinks that making Hillary look like even more of a victim is helpful to women.

tim in vermont said...

To dodge Congressional oversight is to flout the Constitution.

JPS said...

Thrush, the self-proclaimed hack who allowed Podesta to preview his stories, to make sure there was nothing the HRC campaign found objectionable, was the one who thought it was "badass" for her to have her own server. I seem to recall he was a great admirer of her "powering through" the pneumonia that caused her to collapse on Sept 11, 2016.

It makes you wonder just how uninterruptedly hagiographic the coverage had to be before her partisans would think she had a fair shake. Died-in-the-wool liberal journalists ask her the occasional tough question just to maintain the pretense they aren't completely in the tank for her, and they cost her the election.

Darrell said...

Oldies, but goodies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbDBRWb63s&t=7s

Darrell said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifIAlft47bM

IgnatzEsq said...

"I'm so old I remember when it was women who were too weak to vote differently than their husbands demanded."

So you are a couple months old then? At least according to The Guardian.

Bay Area Guy said...

I'm not a Leftwing sexually harassing journalist, but I still found Hillary to be unlikeable and dishonest.

steve uhr said...

She was dishonest and unlikeable. By contrast, Trump is dishonest and unlikeable.

Mark said...

Jill Filipovic --

Didn't she used to pal around the Amanda Marcotte, the fellow crazy radical who was a big promoter of John Edwards?

tim in vermont said...

No, some people, myself included, find Trump likable. I bet only a small fraction of her voters found her likeable.

traditionalguy said...

Stealing a woman’s Presidency isn’t nice..

Drago said...

steve uhr: "She was dishonest and unlikeable. By contrast, Trump is dishonest and unlikeable."

Keep telling yourself that.

Each day.

Without fail.

Saint Croix said...

It's a vast male feminist conspiracy!

Drago said...

"They realize we remember the coverage right?"

No, they dont. History literally begins anew each day for the left.

Bay Area Guy said...

If we had any tactical sense, we would suppress our criticism of Ms. Hillary, and encourage her to run a 3rd time in 2020, for an epic rematch against Trump, and inevitable defeat.

But it is fun to bash her, because she is so horrid.

Earnest Prole said...

the man who cost Clinton the election was A. Weiner

I like what you’ve done there.

Seriously, run, don’t walk, to your computer to rent or buy Weiner, the documentary. The shots of Huma’s withering contempt are alone worth the price of admission.

FIDO said...

She was dishonest and unlikeable. By contrast, Trump is dishonest and unlikeable

Yup. It was a Kang vs. Kodos election. So we needed to find a different reason to pick Stench One or Stench Two.

The less offensive Stench won.

Gahrie said...

If we had any tactical sense, we would suppress our criticism of Ms. Hillary, and encourage her to run a 3rd time in 2020, for an epic rematch against Trump, and inevitable defeat.

I agree with your reasoning, but I disagree with your basic premise. While the thought of Hillary having to emotionally deal with yet another loss is pleasing, I don't know if the Left could deal with it. I mean look how they have reacted this time. While the resulting chaos would probably eliminate much of the Left, it would be rather unpleasant for the country.

Pianoman said...

That's the new excuse? Matt Lauer was BIASED IN FAVOR OF TRUMP?

It's kinda fun to watch the Left consume itself in this orgy of rage over Trump winning. But it's delusion to pretend that sexual predation is the reason Hillary lost.

Something else that's interesting here, in the category of "the dog that didn't bark" ... the author spends zero time blaming the Electoral College. I guess that particular talking point just didn't gain any traction.

Darrell said...

If they ever discover a coded message hidden within the full human genome, I suspect it will say--Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States.

Big Mike said...

I do have to wonder how Jill Filipovic imagines that Hillary Clinton would have handled Vlad Putin and Xi Jinping and Kim Jun-un if she couldn't handle Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer? Does silly Jilly expect them to be all deferential too? The men who assaulted our embassy in Benghazi weren't being deferential.

campy said...

It makes you wonder just how uninterruptedly hagiographic the coverage had to be before her partisans would think she had a fair shake.

Obama-level x 2 would be fine.

stever said...

Correlation is not causation - you need no additional proof.

robother said...

Once again, Bill Clinton is the dog that doesn't bark. Or maybe, Leftist feministas have grown so deaf from hearing racist dogwhistles that they can't hear the Big Dog howling.

Big Mike said...

(I do have to admit that when I saw Jill Filipovic's headline, "The Men Who Cost Clinton the Election," that I would be reading about Robbie Mook and his vaunted, but ultimately just a bit flawed (ahem!), mathematical models, not to mention whomever it was who told Hillary to campaign in southern West Virginia on having shut down the coal industry and whomever it was who told her not to bother campaigning in Wisconsin.

Nope. None of them.

Yet.

PoNyman said...

I work in the software industry so I'm biased. The way her department, team, and herself handled email from the beginning with their operating procedures to the scandalous blow up to her/their 'non'-cooperation with federal investigators was so bad that the fact that she was still running for president was incredible to me. I didn't vote for either of the main candidates, but just for the email issue I couldn't have seen myself voting for her in almost any situation.

Patrick Henry was right! said...

"I think of a man, then subtract reason and accountability"

Ken B said...

She was ENTITLED to that win.

Ken B said...

Tim, you answer your own question. She didn't want to risk being elected. Ditto why the deplorable speech.

tim in vermont said...

If we had any tactical sense, we would suppress our criticism of Ms. Hillary,

We can say anything we want in front of them. None of it gets through their skulls. If they had listened to us and run somebody else for all of the good reasons we offered, we would all be grumbling about the latest nonsense from Bernie Sanders.

Howard said...

Someone, please, give Hillary a participation trophy

John said...

Is Filipovic a Russian name?

It sounds Russian.

Very suspicious

John Henry

Drago said...

Howard: "Someone, please, give Hillary a participation trophy"

There HAS to be a spare Nobel Prize sitting around here somewhere and you just know they are going to have about a hundred leftover Oscars from all of Ingas hereoes who have suddenly attained "He Who Cannot Be Given An Award" Status.

Clyde said...

"Untrustworthy," "ruthless and corrupt," "dishonest and unlikable." The only one that might not apply to Hillary Clintonwould be unlikable, since apparently some people did like her. The rest were all self-evident.

You can't handle the truth, Jill.

rcocean said...

Thanks Ms. Filipovic for outing Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer as "secret" conservatives.

I knew it! No wonder they sexually harassed women - No liberal Democrat would do such a thing. Comrade Hillary has forbidden it.

Of course, there's Al Franken, and Harvey Weinstein - but I'm sure upcoming NYT reports will prove they were Kulaks and Secret Wreckers - I'm mean "Secret Conservatives".

R.J. Chatt said...

1. Those columnists/male feminists/journalists weren't read by Trump voters. And, 2. As we are continually reminded, Hillary won the popular vote, so however the men phrased their questions that clearly didn't matter in terms of popular opinion. 3. The Electoral College determined the win by Trump and was accomplished in states where those journalists probably have their least significant influence. That's my impression, I could be wrong, but I don't believe Matt Lauer or Charlie Rose are major figures in Red States or "fly over country."

This story is an indication to me that the NY Times and Hillary people are looking for an alternate source of blame as the Russian collusion story is looking weaker everyday, despite the frantic bloviating on the Left about the Mueller investigation.

Birches said...

The Narrative strikes again.

Earnest Prole said...

For a shrill, duplicitous shrew-bitch, Hillary is likable enough. Does saying that make me a sexist? If so, what my wife says about Hillary makes her a sexist squared.

tcrosse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tcrosse said...

Occam's Razor: The Presidency was H>ers by right, ergo the only way she could be deprived of it is by Foul Play. QED.

n.n said...

The female chauvinists are still on a baby hunt. A reasonable woman would deem the baby viable in the fourth trimester. This is why Clinton lost and the neo-Democratic Socialists need to lose. Denying individual dignity, debasing human life, and the left's penchant for elective wars, refugee crises (e.g. trail of tears), disenfranchising native people, and redistributive change.

I wonder who thought electing an abortionist, and incompetent abortionist, would be a good idea.

When you're an unconscious woman, disarmed baby, or prepubescent boy or girl, they grant you moral authority to molest, abort, indoctrinate, and medically corrupt you as liberal joke.

buwaya said...

Filipovic is certainly a Slavic name, most likely south Slav though, Serbian or Croat.

Lots of pro-Putin sentiment among Serbians. So theres some reason to suspect. And suspicion suffices these days of course.

Amadeus 48 said...

Am I misremembering? I thought Althouse thought Lauer was tougher on Trump than Hillary. Oh yeah. She said this:

"Trump won the coin flip and got to choose to go second. Matt Lauer offered a ground rule, that neither candidate should use his/her time to attack the other. Clinton broke the rule in the end, and Lauer called attention to that, both to Hillary and at the beginning of Trump's turn. She was a fool to open the door, and Trump walked right through it.

"Lauer was harder on Trump, interrupting and getting harsh with him. But Trump didn't let that faze him, and compared to Hillary, who was ploddingly severe and robotic, he was very good."

But Jill Philipovic thinks,

"He [Lauer] notoriously peppered and interrupted Mrs. Clinton with cold, aggressive, condescending questions hyper-focused on her emails, only to pitch softballs at Mr. Trump and treat him with gentle collegiality a half-hour later."

Oh, dear. Who am I to believe?

I'll go with Althouse.

Rob McLean said...

So now it's men?

Men are the reason we can't have nice things, like genius female presidents.

Howard said...

Drago:There HAS to be a spare Nobel Prize sitting around here somewhere...
She is not loved like Barry Hussein O'Bozo. An appropriate award would be an unbreakable ashtray shaped like a discus presented on The View.

etbass said...

"The buck stops here."

-Hillary Clinton

Henry said...

It’s hard to look at these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton and not see glimmers of that same simmering disrespect and impulse to keep women in a subordinate place...

If you're going to write an article about the men who cost Mrs. Clinton the election, it's important to stick to you thesis.

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

"Many were" is, of course, statistical nonsense. Some prominent journalists and talking heads have been depantsed. But the statistical group isn't "these many and a few others". It's "these few among legion."

* * *

Something I find interesting is how the idea of the private abuser is being eroded. The old idea was that abusive men were hard to catch because they presented a completely different face to the world. The new idea is that abusive men are always subconsciously spinning their webs of abuse and all their actions are sticky with bad intent. The new facts are that many of these abusers were not secretive or two-faced at all. That doesn't really tell us the old framework was wrong. Some people are two-faced and secretive.

wwww said...

"Seriously, run, don’t walk, to your computer to rent or buy Weiner, the documentary. The shots of Huma’s withering contempt are alone worth the price of admission."


The spouse and I watched it together, with amazement.

Comanche Voter said...

Give me a flipping break! Matt Lauer is/was criticized by Hillary for continuing to ask about her e-mails. I think that her story went, "Matt Lauer continued to question me after I gave him my standard answer on e-mails. . . "

You know Hillary, Matt Lauer is a sentient human being. (Let's leave his sexual pecadilloes aside for the moment, just as you did Billy Jeff's sexual pecadilloes back in the day).

Saying, just for the purposes of argument, that Matt Lauer is not stupid, is it just possible that he found your "standard answer on e-mails" just a wee bit not credible? Most of the rest of the country thought Hillary was lying through her teeth, so why not Matt?

n.n said...

Filipovic... Lots of pro-Putin sentiment among Serbians. So theres some reason to suspect

The Russians, Chinese, Mexicans stood to gain more under a Democratic administration. The Russians a blind eye. The Chinese a progressive distribution of high tech. The Mexicans a relief valve for their deplorables and first-wave of invaders (the Hispanics are the single most racist (e.g. Spanish-only venues) group after the neo-National Socialists (i.e. diversitts who deny individual dignity, abortionists who deem life unworthy, socialists because the Jews have too much, and Democrats who haven't found an elective war ("social justice adventure") they didn't like).

n.n said...

I though deplorables only watch Fox. If anything the neo-National Socialists outlets would be watched and influence liberals, progressives, female/male chauvinists, and other left of center people.

Unknown said...

Mrs. Clinton is dishonest and unlikable, so the reporting was neutral and accurate.

-sw

Michael said...

"It’s hard to look at these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton and not see glimmers of that same simmering disrespect and impulse to keep women in a subordinate place...."

Or maybe they had an impulse to keep Mrs. Clinton away from the White House. Hillary is not all women, or even an avatar of all women. They (and others) may have had different impulses dealing with, say, Condi Rice or some other woman of real accomplishment.

SGT Ted said...

I didn't need Lauer, Halperin or Rose to know that Hillary was a shitty person unfit to be President.

Sebastian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sebastian said...

"The Men Who Cost Clinton the Election" So Jill thinks Hill couldn't handle Matt and Charlie but was ready for Vlad and Kim and Xi?

MikeR said...

These predatory men thought that Clinton was dishonest and unlikeable. But then, most other men, and women, felt that way too. I see no correlation there.
All the article really demonstrates is that a remarkable fraction of people in media are predators.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Charlie Rose gave Clinton a tongue bath.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Jupiter said...

Apparently, Ms. Filipovic is simply unable to think of any reason why anyone would dislike or mistrust Hillary Clinton other than her sex. Cattle futures? Bimbo eruptions? $500,000.00 fluff speeches? Benghazi? Deplorables? Nah, Hillary is perfection in human form, and only a rancid misogynist could fail to recognize that fact.

I'd add to your list... Set up a Private Server while running the STATE Dept., Used private server to enrich herself and her family, destruction of hardware devices, 30,000+ emails destroyed after they were subpoenaed, a corrupted FBI in the tank for her, Having Qaddafi murdered and leaving a disaster in Libya...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Shorter Butt Hurt Tour: Learn now, hacks - Democrats will receive ZERO tuff questions.

MikeR said...

"But when one of the best-qualified candidates for the presidency in American history and the first woman to get close to the Oval Office loses to an opponent who had not dedicated a nanosecond of his life to public service and ran a blatantly misogynist campaign, it’s hard to conclude that gender didn’t play a role." Total non sequitur? Is the author even trying to make sense?

Fabi said...

How was Felonia one of the most qualified candidates? She carpet-bagged her way to a senate seat on her husband's coat tails and was appointed Secretary of State. Not exactly a deep resume.

RichardJohnson said...

Jill Filipovic in the NYT tells us about Hillary:
one of the best-qualified candidates for the presidency in American history
Why was that? Hillary was both Secretary of State and US Senator.I fail to see how being First Lady makes one qualified to be President.

What other Presidents were both Secretary of State and US Senator? James Buchanan, who by most accounts was one of the worst Presidents in US History. Filipovic tells us that Hillary was "one of the best-qualified candidates for the presidency in American history" - when one of the worst Presidents in US History held the same offices that we are told made Hillary so well-qualified.

William Chadwick said...

They saw Hillary as dishonest and unlikeable? Good that they got something right.

FIDO said...

Well, James Buchanan was a man, so that disqualifies him from being truly great.

Meanwhile Hillary is a woman, which means she has special sprinkles all over her. And pixie dust. Cause she's a princess.

chickelit said...

Past prediction: We'll look back on this brief bloody period of white cis male dismemberment as Hillary's Revenge™.

Unknown said...

Boo frickin hobo.

William Chadwick said...

Wasn't Buchanan supposed to be Gay? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Yancey Ward said...

It is good to see that Ms. Filipovic is recovering nicely from the coma she was in between September 2015 until November 9th 2016.

Leland said...

Jill Filipovic, last seen giving the world advice to not have children to save the planet, is still wasting the earth's natural resources.

John Lynch said...

A liberal discovers biased media coverage.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Yeah. The majority of women who didn't vote for her didn't trust her and probably wouldn't have fawned over her when speaking to her either. So what's this Jill Filipovic's problem again?

kentuckyliz said...

And yet, HRC is the kind of woman they wish they had in their life right now: a ruthless woman who controls the bimbo eruptions and keeps them from spinning out of control. These men can't control themselves and their bimbo eruptions. They hated her for being able to control bimbo eruptions, when they themselves couldn't.