The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post’s endorsements were solid.

Yes, the endorsements made by just one 60 year man interviewing women and asking them how they would balance elected office and childcare were particularly solid.

I don't see why it matters who the Post endorsed. It was the editorial board making the endorsment not the newspaper. You should still subscribe and read the Post. The editorial board has no input on the factual aspect of the articles.

Well then, you should go back and read the thoughts of a political science professor quoted above on the Kojo show who finds that for local elections, newspaper endorsements do matter. Because, there's such limited coverage of local politics, that people don't have enough info. to really analyze the candidates unless they go to lots of candidate events, which few people do.

The Post generally endorsed the better candidates. The questions that the two losing candidates in Fairfax made a big deal out of in an unsuccessful attempt to jump start their losing campaigns were the journalistic equivalent of harmless error in a trial.

Or the candidates that the Post reported as better we're endorsed by the Post. I am having trouble separating cause from effect in this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post’s endorsements were solid.

Yes, the endorsements made by just one 60 year man interviewing women and asking them how they would balance elected office and childcare were particularly solid.

I don't see why it matters who the Post endorsed. It was the editorial board making the endorsment not the newspaper. You should still subscribe and read the Post. The editorial board has no input on the factual aspect of the articles.

Well then, you should go back and read the thoughts of a political science professor quoted above on the Kojo show who finds that for local elections, newspaper endorsements do matter. Because, there's such limited coverage of local politics, that people don't have enough info. to really analyze the candidates unless they go to lots of candidate events, which few people do.

The Post generally endorsed the better candidates. The questions that the two losing candidates in Fairfax made a big deal out of in an unsuccessful attempt to jump start their losing campaigns were the journalistic equivalent of harmless error in a trial.

Or the candidates that the Post reported as better we're endorsed by the Post. I am having trouble separating cause from effect in this situation.

+1 We've typically voted for everyone the Post endorses because we don't read much about local politics. No more, after learning about how they do their endorsement process.

[Anonymous]

I was surprised to see the Post had endorsed Murrough.
I note Descano still won.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post’s endorsements were solid.

Yes, the endorsements made by just one 60 year man interviewing women and asking them how they would balance elected office and childcare were particularly solid.

I don't see why it matters who the Post endorsed. It was the editorial board making the endorsment not the newspaper. You should still subscribe and read the Post. The editorial board has no input on the factual aspect of the articles.

Well then, you should go back and read the thoughts of a political science professor quoted above on the Kojo show who finds that for local elections, newspaper endorsements do matter. Because, there's such limited coverage of local politics, that people don't have enough info. to really analyze the candidates unless they go to lots of candidate events, which few people do.

The Post generally endorsed the better candidates. The questions that the two losing candidates in Fairfax made a big deal out of in an unsuccessful attempt to jump start their losing campaigns were the journalistic equivalent of harmless error in a trial.

Or the candidates that the Post reported as better we're endorsed by the Post. I am having trouble separating cause from effect in this situation.

You’re not too bright if you think those losing candidates were better candidates. No qualifications for the positions they wanted!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post’s endorsements were solid.

Yes, the endorsements made by just one 60 year man interviewing women and asking them how they would balance elected office and childcare were particularly solid.

I don't see why it matters who the Post endorsed. It was the editorial board making the endorsment not the newspaper. You should still subscribe and read the Post. The editorial board has no input on the factual aspect of the articles.

Well then, you should go back and read the thoughts of a political science professor quoted above on the Kojo show who finds that for local elections, newspaper endorsements do matter. Because, there's such limited coverage of local politics, that people don't have enough info. to really analyze the candidates unless they go to lots of candidate events, which few people do.

The Post generally endorsed the better candidates. The questions that the two losing candidates in Fairfax made a big deal out of in an unsuccessful attempt to jump start their losing campaigns were the journalistic equivalent of harmless error in a trial.

Or the candidates that the Post reported as better we're endorsed by the Post. I am having trouble separating cause from effect in this situation.

You’re not too bright if you think those losing candidates were better candidates. No qualifications for the positions they wanted!

As reported by the Post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post’s endorsements were solid.

Yes, the endorsements made by just one 60 year man interviewing women and asking them how they would balance elected office and childcare were particularly solid.

I don't see why it matters who the Post endorsed. It was the editorial board making the endorsment not the newspaper. You should still subscribe and read the Post. The editorial board has no input on the factual aspect of the articles.

Well then, you should go back and read the thoughts of a political science professor quoted above on the Kojo show who finds that for local elections, newspaper endorsements do matter. Because, there's such limited coverage of local politics, that people don't have enough info. to really analyze the candidates unless they go to lots of candidate events, which few people do.

The Post generally endorsed the better candidates. The questions that the two losing candidates in Fairfax made a big deal out of in an unsuccessful attempt to jump start their losing campaigns were the journalistic equivalent of harmless error in a trial.

Or the candidates that the Post reported as better we're endorsed by the Post. I am having trouble separating cause from effect in this situation.

You’re not too bright if you think those losing candidates were better candidates. No qualifications for the positions they wanted!

As reported by the Post?

+1 If someone would look at the bios of some of the women the Post didn't endorse and deem them to have "no qualifications" that is just astounding to me. SMH.

[Anonymous]

+1 If someone would look at the bios of some of the women the Post didn't endorse and deem them to have "no qualifications" that is just astounding to me. SMH.

Is it a matter of "no qualifications" or "not as qualified?"

Please list who you think was more qualified?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1 If someone would look at the bios of some of the women the Post didn't endorse and deem them to have "no qualifications" that is just astounding to me. SMH.

Is it a matter of "no qualifications" or "not as qualified?"

Please list who you think was more qualified?

I see how you conveniently left out the particularly inaccurate part of the post I was responding to.

The Post generally endorsed the better candidates. The questions that the two losing candidates in Fairfax made a big deal out of in an unsuccessful attempt to jump start their losing campaigns were the journalistic equivalent of harmless error in a trial.

Or the candidates that the Post reported as better we're endorsed by the Post. I am having trouble separating cause from effect in this situation.

You’re not too bright if you think those losing candidates were better candidates. No qualifications for the positions they wanted!

Please tell me how two women with degrees from Yale law school, one a Georgetown Law Professor; Chesterbrook PTA President and McLean Community Center Governing Board Member, the other a long-time tax attorney are seen as having "no qualifications" for local government.

[Anonymous]

And the Washington Post is still at it...
https://bluevirginia.us/2019/06/alicia-plerhoples-the-washington-post-editorial-boards-claims-of-identity-politics-are-used-to-silence-us

Three days after the Democratic primary for Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, the Washington Post Editorial Board accused me of running on identity politics, called me and other primary candidates “insurgents”, and praised the “establishment.” Let’s review for those who need catching up — I ran for an open seat against three white men varying in age from early 50s to early 30s. I am a black 40-year old American woman. We’re all Democrats. For much of the race, I found myself battling the Post’s biases instead of my primary opponents’ who largely treated me, my identity, and my ideas as equal. Indeed, the Post could learn a thing or two from my opponents.

The Post’s Editorial Board may find this shocking but there is not a day that I don’t wake up as a black woman. These two identifiers — “black” and “woman” — are as much a part of me as me. What the Editorial Board wanted me to do was shed my blackness, shed my womanhood, and to pretend that those identities do not affect every single moment of my life. That is what the Editorial Board meant when they accused me of “identity politics”. They meant for me to strip away what I cannot. They meant for me to be quiet about the experiences that only (or mostly) women face, like being catcalled on the street or interrupted during meetings, or asked how you plan to be in office when you have two small children (the question the Editorial Board asked me during my endorsement interview). They meant for me to be quiet about experiences that only (or mostly) black and brown people face, like being racially profiled while shopping or driving, or shown houses only in certain parts of town. But these experiences are exactly why we need women and women of color in office; and not just in office but also talking about their racialized and gendered experiences while running for office.

[Anonymous]

Plerhoples lost. So did Kautz. Move on!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Plerhoples lost. So did Kautz. Move on!

Yeah. Damned women. Go back to the kitchen where they belong, right Mr. Hockstader?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plerhoples lost. So did Kautz. Move on!

Yeah. Damned women. Go back to the kitchen where they belong, right Mr. Hockstader?

Stop pretending that being a PTA president with an Ivy League degree is adequate preparation to be the CEO of a county bigger than some states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plerhoples lost. So did Kautz. Move on!

Yeah. Damned women. Go back to the kitchen where they belong, right Mr. Hockstader?

Stop pretending that being a PTA president with an Ivy League degree is adequate preparation to be the CEO of a county bigger than some states.

True. Public education in Fairfax county is low on my list of concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plerhoples lost. So did Kautz. Move on!

Yeah. Damned women. Go back to the kitchen where they belong, right Mr. Hockstader?

Stop pretending that being a PTA president with an Ivy League degree is adequate preparation to be the CEO of a county bigger than some states.

True. Public education in Fairfax county is low on my list of concerns.

+1 more

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plerhoples lost. So did Kautz. Move on!

Yeah. Damned women. Go back to the kitchen where they belong, right Mr. Hockstader?

Stop pretending that being a PTA president with an Ivy League degree is adequate preparation to be the CEO of a county bigger than some states.

True. Public education in Fairfax county is low on my list of concerns.

It may be low on your list of concerns, but we spend over $2b on public education annually in Fairfax. Over half of our annual $4b+ budget. So if you live in Ffx Cty you should care.