Reply to The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]+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.
[/quote]

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

Please list who you think was more qualified?

[/quote]

I see how you conveniently left out the particularly inaccurate part of the post I was responding to.
[quote]
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. [b]No qualifications[/b] for the positions they wanted! [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics